The Project Gutenberg Etext of Signs of Change by William Morris
#6 in our series by William Morris

Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check
the laws for your country before redistributing these files!!!

Please take a look at the important information in this header.
We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an
electronic path open for the next readers.  Do not remove this.

This should be the first thing seen when anyone opens the book.
Do not change or edit it without written permission.  The words
are carefully chosen to provide users with the information they
need about what they can legally do with the texts.


**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**

**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**

*These Etexts Prepared By Hundreds of Volunteers and Donations*

Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, and
further information is included below.  We need your donations.

Presently, contributions are only being solicited from people in:
Texas, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota,
Iowa, Indiana, and Vermont. As the requirements for other states
are met, additions to this list will be made and fund raising will
begin in the additional states. These donations should be made to:

Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Ave.
Oxford, MS 38655


Title:  Signs of Change

Author:  William Morris

Release Date:  February, 2002  [Etext #3053]

Edition:  10

Language: English

The Project Gutenberg Etext of Signs of Change by William Morris
******This file should be named sgnch10.txt or sgnch10.zip******

Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, sgnch11.txt
VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, sgnch10a.txt

This etext was prepared by David Price, email ccx074@coventry.ac.uk,
from the 1896 Longmans, Green, and Co. edition.

Project Gutenberg Etexts are usually created from multiple editions,
all of which are in the Public Domain in the United States, unless a
copyright notice is included.  Therefore, we usually do NOT keep any
of these books in compliance with any particular paper edition.

We are now trying to release all our books one year in advance
of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
Please be encouraged to send us error messages even years after
the official publication date.

Please note:  neither this list nor its contents are final till
midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A
preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
and editing by those who wish to do so.

Most people start at our sites at:
http://gutenberg.net
http://promo.net/pg


Those of you who want to download our Etexts before announcment
can surf to them as follows, and just download by date; this is
also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.

http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext01
or
ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext01

Or /etext00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90

Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
as it appears in our Newsletters.


Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)

We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The
time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.  This
projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If our value
per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
million dollars per hour this year as we release fifty new Etext
files per month, or 500 more Etexts in 2000 for a total of 3000+
If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
should reach over 300 billion Etexts given away by year's end.

The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext
Files by December 31, 2001.  [10,000 x 100,000,000 = 1 Trillion]
This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.

At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third
of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 3,333 Etexts unless we
manage to get some real funding.

Something is needed to create a future for Project Gutenberg for
the next 100 years.

We need your donations more than ever!

Presently, contributions are only being solicited from people in:
Texas, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota,
Iowa, Indiana, and Vermont. As the requirements for other states
are met, additions to this list will be made and fund raising will
begin in the additional states.

All donations should be made to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and will be tax deductible to the extent
permitted by law.

Mail to:

Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Avenue
Oxford, MS 38655  [USA]


We are working with the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation to build more stable support and ensure the
future of Project Gutenberg.

We need your donations more than ever!

You can get up to date donation information at:

http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html


***

You can always email directly to:

Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>

hart@pobox.com forwards to hart@prairienet.org and archive.org
if your mail bounces from archive.org, I will still see it, if
it bounces from prairienet.org, better resend later on. . . .

We would prefer to send you this information by email.


Example command-line FTP session:

ftp metalab.unc.edu
login: anonymous
password: your@login
cd pub/docs/books/gutenberg
cd etext90 through etext99 or etext00 through etext01, etc.
dir [to see files]
get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files]
GET GUTINDEX.??  [to get a year's listing of books, e.g.,
GUTINDEX.99]
GET GUTINDEX.ALL [to get a listing of ALL books]


**The Legal Small Print**


(Three Pages)

***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START***
Why is this "Small Print!" statement here?  You know: lawyers.
They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from
someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
fault.  So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
disclaims most of our liability to you.  It also tells you how
you can distribute copies of this etext if you want to.

*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT
By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
this "Small Print!" statement.  If you do not, you can receive
a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by
sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
you got it from.  If you received this etext on a physical
medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.

ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
etexts,
is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States
copyright
on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules, set forth
below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext
under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.

To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable
efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
works.  Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any
medium they may be on may contain "Defects".  Among other
things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
[1] the Project (and any other party you may receive this
etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time to the person you received it from.  If you received it
on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy.  If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.

THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS".  NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
may have other legal rights.

INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold the Project, its directors,
officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, cost
and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following that you do or cause:
[1] distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification,
or addition to the etext, or [3] any Defect.

DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
or:

[1]  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this
     requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
     etext or this "small print!" statement.  You may however,
     if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable
     binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
     including any form resulting from conversion by word pro-
     cessing or hypertext software, but only so long as
     *EITHER*:

     [*]  The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
          does *not* contain characters other than those
          intended by the author of the work, although tilde
          (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
          be used to convey punctuation intended by the
          author, and additional characters may be used to
          indicate hypertext links; OR

     [*]  The etext may be readily converted by the reader at
          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
          form by the program that displays the etext (as is
          the case, for instance, with most word processors);
          OR

     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
          etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
          or other equivalent proprietary form).

[2]  Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this
     "Small Print!" statement.

[3]  Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the
     gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
     already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you
     don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are
     payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
     the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
     legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
     periodic) tax return.  Please contact us beforehand to
     let us know your plans and to work out the details.

WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
public domain etexts, and royalty free copyright licenses.
If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
hart@pobox.com

*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.04.07.00*END*




SIGNS OF CHANGE




Contents:

How we Live and How we Might Live
Whigs, Democrats, and Socialists
Feudal England
The Hopes of Civilization
The Aims of Art
Useful Work versus Useless Toil
Dawn of a New Epoch



HOW WE LIVE AND HOW WE MIGHT LIVE



The word Revolution, which we Socialists are so often forced to use,
has a terrible sound in most people's ears, even when we have
explained to them that it does not necessarily mean a change
accompanied by riot and all kinds of violence, and cannot mean a
change made mechanically and in the teeth of opinion by a group of
men who have somehow managed to seize on the executive power for the
moment.  Even when we explain that we use the word revolution in its
etymological sense, and mean by it a change in the basis of society,
people are scared at the idea of such a vast change, and beg that you
will speak of reform and not revolution.  As, however, we Socialists
do not at all mean by our word revolution what these worthy people
mean by their word reform, I can't help thinking that it would be a
mistake to use it, whatever projects we might conceal beneath its
harmless envelope.  So we will stick to our word, which means a
change of the basis of society; it may frighten people, but it will
at least warn them that there is something to be frightened about,
which will be no less dangerous for being ignored; and also it may
encourage some people, and will mean to them at least not a fear, but
a hope.

Fear and Hope--those are the names of the two great passions which
rule the race of man, and with which revolutionists have to deal; to
give hope to the many oppressed and fear to the few oppressors, that
is our business; if we do the first and give hope to the many, the
few MUST be frightened by their hope; otherwise we do not want to
frighten them; it is not revenge we want for poor people, but
happiness; indeed, what revenge can be taken for all the thousands of
years of the sufferings of the poor?

However, many of the oppressors of the poor, most of them, we will
say, are not conscious of their being oppressors (we shall see why
presently); they live in an orderly, quiet way themselves, as far as
possible removed from the feelings of a Roman slave-owner or a
Legree; they know that the poor exist, but their sufferings do not
present themselves to them in a trenchant and dramatic way; they
themselves have troubles to bear, and they think doubtless that to
bear trouble is the lot of humanity, nor have they any means of
comparing the troubles of their lives with those of people lower in
the social scale; and if ever the thought of those heavier troubles
obtrudes itself upon them, they console themselves with the maxim
that people do get used to the troubles they have to bear, whatever
they may be.

Indeed, as far as regards individuals at least, that is but too true,
so that we have as supporters of the present state of things, however
bad it may be, first those comfortable unconscious oppressors who
think that they have everything to fear from any change which would
involve more than the softest and most gradual of reforms, and
secondly those poor people who, living hard and anxiously as they do,
can hardly conceive of any change for the better happening to them,
and dare not risk one tittle of their poor possessions in taking any
action towards a possible bettering of their condition; so that while
we can do little with the rich save inspire them with fear, it is
hard indeed to give the poor any hope.  It is, then, no less than
reasonable that those whom we try to involve in the great struggle
for a better form of life than that which we now lead should call on
us to give them at least some idea of what that life may be like.

A reasonable request, but hard to satisfy, since we are living under
a system that makes conscious effort towards reconstruction almost
impossible:  it is not unreasonable on our part to answer, "There are
certain definite obstacles to the real progress of man; we can tell
you what these are; take them away, and then you shall see."

However, I purpose now to offer myself as a victim for the
satisfaction of those who consider that as things now go we have at
least got something, and are terrified at the idea of losing their
hold of that, lest they should find they are worse off than before,
and have nothing.  Yet in the course of my endeavour to show how we
might live, I must more or less deal in negatives.  I mean to say I
must point out where in my opinion we fall short in our present
attempts at decent life.  I must ask the rich and well-to-do what
sort of a position it is which they are so anxious to preserve at any
cost? and if, after all, it will be such a terrible loss to them to
give it up? and I must point out to the poor that they, with
capacities for living a dignified and generous life, are in a
position which they cannot endure without continued degradation.

How do we live, then, under our present system?  Let us look at it a
little.

And first, please to understand that our present system of Society is
based on a state of perpetual war.  Do any of you think that this is
as it should be?  I know that you have often been told that the
competition, which is at present the rule of all production, is a
good thing, and stimulates the progress of the race; but the people
who tell you this should call competition by its shorter name of WAR
if they wish to be honest, and you would then be free to consider
whether or no war stimulates progress, otherwise than as a mad bull
chasing you over your own garden may do.  War or competition,
whichever you please to call it, means at the best pursuing your own
advantage at the cost of some one else's loss, and in the process of
it you must not be sparing of destruction even of your own
possessions, or you will certainly come by the worse in the struggle.
You understand that perfectly as to the kind of war in which people
go out to kill and be killed; that sort of war in which ships are
commissioned, for instance, "to sink, burn, and destroy;" but it
appears that you are not so conscious of this waste of goods when you
are only carrying on that other war called COMMERCE; observe,
however, that the waste is there all the same.

Now let us look at this kind of war a little closer, run through some
of the forms of it, that we may see how the "burn, sink, and destroy"
is carried on in it.

First, you have that form of it called national rivalry, which in
good truth is nowadays the cause of all gunpowder and bayonet wars
which civilized nations wage.  For years past we English have been
rather shy of them, except on those happy occasions when we could
carry them on at no sort of risk to ourselves, when the killing was
all on one side, or at all events when we hoped it would be.  We have
been shy of gunpowder war with a respectable enemy for a long while,
and I will tell you why:  It is because we have had the lion's-share
of the world-market; we didn't want to fight for it as a nation, for
we had got it; but now this is changing in a most significant, and,
to a Socialist, a most cheering way; we are losing or have lost that
lion's share; it is now a desperate "competition" between the great
nations of civilization for the world-market, and to-morrow it may be
a desperate war for that end.  As a result, the furthering of war (if
it be not on too large a scale) is no longer confined to the honour-
and-glory kind of old Tories, who if they meant anything at all by it
meant that a Tory war would be a good occasion for damping down
democracy; we have changed all that, and now it is quite another kind
of politician that is wont to urge us on to "patriotism" as 'tis
called.  The leaders of the Progressive Liberals, as they would call
themselves, long-headed persons who know well enough that social
movements are going on, who are not blind to the fact that the world
will move with their help or without it; these have been the Jingoes
of these later days.  I don't mean to say they know what they are
doing:  politicians, as you well know, take good care to shut their
eyes to everything that may happen six months ahead; but what is
being done is this:  that the present system, which always must
include national rivalry, is pushing us into a desperate scramble for
the markets on more or less equal terms with other nations, because,
once more, we have lost that command of them which we once had.
Desperate is not too strong a word.  We shall let this impulse to
snatch markets carry us whither it will, whither it must.  To-day it
is successful burglary and disgrace, to-morrow it may be mere defeat
and disgrace.

Now this is not a digression, although in saying this I am nearer to
what is generally called politics than I shall be again.  I only want
to show you what commercial war comes to when it has to do with
foreign nations, and that even the dullest can see how mere waste
must go with it.  That is how we live now with foreign nations,
prepared to ruin them without war if possible, with it if necessary,
let alone meantime the disgraceful exploiting of savage tribes and
barbarous peoples, on whom we force at once our shoddy wares and our
hypocrisy at the cannon's mouth.

Well, surely Socialism can offer you something in the place of all
that.  It can; it can offer you peace and friendship instead of war.
We might live utterly without national rivalries, acknowledging that
while it is best for those who feel that they naturally form a
community under one name to govern themselves, yet that no community
in civilization should feel that it had interests opposed any other,
their economical condition being at any rate similar; so that any
citizen of one community could fall to work and live without
disturbance of his life when he was in a foreign country, and would
fit into his place quite naturally; so that all civilized nations
would form one great community, agreeing together as to the kind and
amount of production and distribution needed; working at such and
such production where it could be best produced; avoiding waste by
all means.  Please to think of the amount of waste which they would
avoid, how much such a revolution would add to the wealth of the
world!  What creature on earth would be harmed by such a revolution?
Nay, would not everybody be the better for it?  And what hinders it?
I will tell you presently.

Meantime let us pass from this "competition" between nations to that
between "the organizers of labour," great firms, joint-stock
companies; capitalists in short, and see how competition "stimulates
production" among them:  indeed it does do that; but what kind of
production?  Well, production of something to sell at a profit, or
say production of profits:  and note how war commercial stimulates
that:  a certain market is demanding goods; there are, say, a hundred
manufacturers who make that kind of goods, and every one of them
would if he could keep that market to himself; and struggles
desperately to get as much of it as he can, with the obvious result
that presently the thing is overdone, and the market is glutted, and
all that fury of manufacture has to sink into cold ashes.  Doesn't
that seem something like war to you?  Can't you see the waste of it--
waste of labour, skill, cunning, waste of life in short?  Well, you
may say, but it cheapens the goods.  In a sense it does; and yet only
apparently, as wages have a tendency to sink for the ordinary worker
in proportion as prices sink; and at what a cost do we gain this
appearance of cheapness!  Plainly speaking, at the cost of cheating
the consumer and starving the real producer for the benefit of the
gambler, who uses both consumer and producer as his milch cows.  I
needn't go at length into the subject of adulteration, for every one
knows what kind of a part it plays in this sort of commerce; but
remember that it is an absolutely necessary incident to the
production of profit out of wares, which is the business of the so-
called manufacturer; and this you must understand, that, taking him
in the lump, the consumer is perfectly helpless against the gambler;
the goods are forced on him by their cheapness, and with them a
certain kind of life which that energetic, that aggressive cheapness
determines for him:  for so far-reaching is this curse of commercial
war that no country is safe from its ravages; the traditions of a
thousand years fall before it in a month; it overruns a weak or semi-
barbarous country, and whatever romance or pleasure or art existed
there, is trodden down into a mire of sordidness and ugliness; the
Indian or Javanese craftsman may no longer ply his craft leisurely,
working a few hours a day, in producing a maze of strange beauty on a
piece of cloth:  a steam-engine is set a-going at Manchester, and
that victory over nature and a thousand stubborn difficulties is used
for the base work of producing a sort of plaster of china-clay and
shoddy, and the Asiatic worker, if he is not starved to death
outright, as plentifully happens, is driven himself into a factory to
lower the wages of his Manchester brother worker, and nothing of
character is left him except, most like, an accumulation of fear and
hatred of that to him most unaccountable evil, his English master.
The South Sea Islander must leave his canoe-carving, his sweet rest,
and his graceful dances, and become the slave of a slave:  trousers,
shoddy, rum, missionary, and fatal disease--he must swallow all this
civilization in the lump, and neither himself nor we can help him now
till social order displaces the hideous tyranny of gambling that has
ruined him.

Let those be types of the consumer:  but now for the producer; I mean
the real producer, the worker; how does this scramble for the plunder
of the market affect him?  The manufacturer, in the eagerness of his
war, has had to collect into one neighbourhood a vast army of
workers, he has drilled them till they are as fit as may be for his
special branch of production, that is, for making a profit out of it,
and with the result of their being fit for nothing else:  well, when
the glut comes in that market he is supplying, what happens to this
army, every private in which has been depending on the steady demand
in that market, and acting, as he could not choose but act, as if it
were to go on for ever?  You know well what happens to these men:
the factory door is shut on them; on a very large part of them often,
and at the best on the reserve army of labour, so busily employed in
the time of inflation.  What becomes of them?  Nay, we know that well
enough just now.  But what we don't know, or don't choose to know,
is, that this reserve army of labour is an absolute necessity for
commercial war; if OUR manufacturers had not got these poor devils
whom they could draft on to their machines when the demand swelled,
other manufacturers in France, or Germany, or America, would step in
and take the market from them.

So you see, as we live now, it is necessary that a vast part of the
industrial population should be exposed to the danger of periodical
semi-starvation, and that, not for the advantage of the people in
another part of the world, but for their degradation and enslavement.

Just let your minds run for a moment on the kind of waste which this
means, this opening up of new markets among savage and barbarous
countries which is the extreme type of the force of the profit-market
on the world, and you will surely see what a hideous nightmare that
profit-market is:  it keeps us sweating and terrified for our
livelihood, unable to read a book, or look at a picture, or have
pleasant fields to walk in, or to lie in the sun, or to share in the
knowledge of our time, to have in short either animal or intellectual
pleasure, and for what? that we may go on living the same slavish
life till we die, in order to provide for a rich man what is called a
life of ease and luxury; that is to say, a life so empty,
unwholesome, and degraded, that perhaps, on the whole, he is worse
off than we the workers are:  and as to the result of all this
suffering, it is luckiest when it is nothing at all, when you can say
that the wares have done nobody any good; for oftenest they have done
many people harm, and we have toiled and groaned and died in making
poison and destruction for our fellow-men.

Well, I say all this is war, and the results of war, the war this
time, not of competing nations, but of competing firms or capitalist
units:  and it is this war of the firms which hinders the peace
between nations which you surely have agreed with me in thinking is
so necessary; for you must know that war is the very breath of the
nostrils of these fighting firms, and they have now, in our times,
got into their hands nearly all the political power, and they band
together in each country in order to make their respective
governments fulfil just two functions:  the first is at home to act
as a strong police force, to keep the ring in which the strong are
beating down the weak; the second is to act as a piratical body-guard
abroad, a petard to explode the doors which lead to the markets of
the world:  markets at any price abroad, uninterfered-with privilege,
falsely called laissez-faire, {1} at any price at home, to provide
these is the sole business of a government such as our industrial
captains have been able to conceive of.  I must now try to show you
the reason of all this, and what it rests on, by trying to answer the
question, Why have the profit-makers got all this power, or at least
why are they able to keep it?

That takes us to the third form of war commercial:  the last, and,
the one which all the rest is founded on.  We have spoken first of
the war of rival nations; next of that of rival firms:  we have now
to speak of rival men.  As nations under the present system are
driven to compete with one another for the markets of the world, and
as firms or the captains of industry have to scramble for their share
of the profits of the markets, so also have the workers to compete
with each other--for livelihood; and it is this constant competition
or war amongst them which enables the profit-grinders to make their
profits, and by means of the wealth so acquired to take all the
executive power of the country into their hands.  But here is the
difference between the position of the workers and the profit-makers:
to the latter, the profit-grinders, war is necessary; you cannot have
profit-making without competition, individual, corporate, and
national; but you may work for a livelihood without competing; you
may combine instead of competing.

I have said war was the life-breath of the profit-makers; in like
manner, combination is the life of the workers.  The working-classes
or proletariat cannot even exist as a class without combination of
some sort.  The necessity which forced the profit-grinders to collect
their men first into workshops working by the division of labour, and
next into great factories worked by machinery, and so gradually to
draw them into the great towns and centres of civilization, gave
birth to a distinct working-class or proletariat:  and this it was
which gave them their MECHANICAL existence, so to say.  But note,
that they are indeed combined into social groups for the production
of wares, but only as yet mechanically; they do not know what they
are working at, nor whom they are working for, because they are
combining to produce wares of which the profit of a master forms an
essential part, instead of goods for their own use:  as long as they
do this, and compete with each other for leave to do it, they will
be, and will feel themselves to be, simply a part of those competing
firms I have been speaking of; they will be in fact just a part of
the machinery for the production of profit; and so long as this lasts
it will be the aim of the masters or profit-makers to decrease the
market value of this human part of the machinery; that is to say,
since they already hold in their hands the labour of dead men in the
form of capital and machinery, it is their interest, or we will say
their necessity, to pay as little as they can help for the labour of
living men which they have to buy from day to day:  and since the
workmen they employ have nothing but their labour-power, they are
compelled to underbid one another for employment and wages, and so
enable the capitalist to play his game.

I have said that, as things go, the workers are a part of the
competing firms, an adjunct of capital.  Nevertheless, they are only
so by compulsion; and, even without their being conscious of it, they
struggle against that compulsion and its immediate results, the
lowering of their wages, of their standard of life; and this they do,
and must do, both as a class and individually:  just as the slave of
the great Roman lord, though he distinctly felt himself to be a part
of the household, yet collectively was a force in reserve for its
destruction, and individually stole from his lord whenever he could
safely do so.  So, here, you see, is another form of war necessary to
the way we live now, the war of class against class, which, when it
rises to its height, and it seems to be rising at present, will
destroy those other forms of war we have been speaking of; will make
the position of the profit-makers, of perpetual commercial war,
untenable; will destroy the present system of competitive privilege,
or commercial war.

Now observe, I said that to the existence of the workers it was
combination, not competition, that was necessary, while to that of
the profit-makers combination was impossible, and war necessary.  The
present position of the workers is that of the machinery of commerce,
or in plainer words its slaves; when they change that position and
become free, the class of profit-makers must cease to exist; and what
will then be the position of the workers?  Even as it is they are the
one necessary part of society, the life-giving part; the other
classes are but hangers-on who live on them.  But what should they
be, what will they be, when they, once for all, come to know their
real power, and cease competing with one another for livelihood?  I
will tell you:  they will be society, they will be the community.
And being society--that is, there being no class outside them to
contend with--they can then regulate their labour in accordance with
their own real needs.

There is much talk about supply and demand, but the supply and demand
usually meant is an artificial one; it is under the sway of the
gambling market; the demand is forced, as I hinted above, before it
is supplied; nor, as each producer is working against all the rest,
can the producers hold their hands, till the market is glutted and
the workers, thrown out on the streets, hear that there has been
over-production, amidst which over-plus of unsaleable goods they go
ill-supplied with even necessaries, because the wealth which they
themselves have created is "ill-distributed," as we call it--that is,
unjustly taken away from them.

When the workers are society they will regulate their labour, so that
the supply and demand shall be genuine, not gambling; the two will
then be commensurate, for it is the same society which demands that
also supplies; there will be no more artificial famines then, no more
poverty amidst over-production, amidst too great a stock of the very
things which should supply poverty and turn it into well-being.  In
short, there will be no waste and therefore no tyranny.

Well, now, what Socialism offers you in place of these artificial
famines, with their so-called over-production, is, once more,
regulation of the markets; supply and demand commensurate; no
gambling, and consequently (once more) no waste; not overwork and
weariness for the worker one month, and the next no work and terror
of starvation, but steady work and plenty of leisure every month; not
cheap market wares, that is to say, adulterated wares, with scarcely
any GOOD in them, mere scaffold-poles for building up profits; no
labour would be spent on such things as these, which people would
cease to want when they ceased to be slaves.  Not these, but such
goods as best fulfilled the real uses of the consumers, would labour
be set to make; for profit being abolished, people could have what
they wanted, instead of what the profit-grinders at home and abroad
forced them to take.

For what I want you to understand is this:  that in every civilized
country at least there is plenty for all--is, or at any rate might
be.  Even with labour so misdirected as it is at present, an
equitable distribution of the wealth we have would make all people
comparatively comfortable; but that is nothing to the wealth we might
have if labour were not misdirected.

Observe, in the early days of the history of man he was the slave of
his most immediate necessities; Nature was mighty and he was feeble,
and he had to wage constant war with her for his daily food and such
shelter as he could get.  His life was bound down and limited by this
constant struggle; all his morals, laws, religion, are in fact the
outcome and the reflection of this ceaseless toil of earning his
livelihood.  Time passed, and little by little, step by step, he grew
stronger, till now after all these ages he has almost completely
conquered Nature, and one would think should now have leisure to turn
his thoughts towards higher things than procuring to-morrow's dinner.
But, alas! his progress has been broken and halting; and though he
has indeed conquered Nature and has her forces under his control to
do what he will with, he still has himself to conquer, he still has
to think how he will best use those forces which he has mastered.  At
present he uses them blindly, foolishly, as one driven by mere fate.
It would almost seem as if some phantom of the ceaseless pursuit of
food which was once the master of the savage was still hunting the
civilized man; who toils in a dream, as it were, haunted by mere dim
unreal hopes, borne of vague recollections of the days gone by.  Out
of that dream he must wake, and face things as they really are.  The
conquest of Nature is complete, may we not say? and now our business
is, and has for long been, the organization of man, who wields the
forces of Nature.  Nor till this is attempted at least shall we ever
be free of that terrible phantom of fear of starvation which, with
its brother devil, desire of domination, drives us into injustice,
cruelty, and dastardliness of all kinds:  to cease to fear our
fellows and learn to depend on them, to do away with competition and
build up co-operation, is our one necessity.

Now, to get closer to details; you probably know that every man in
civilization is worth, so to say, more than his skin; working, as he
must work, socially, he can produce more than will keep himself alive
and in fair condition; and this has been so for many centuries, from
the time, in fact, when warring tribes began to make their conquered
enemies slaves instead of killing them; and of course his capacity of
producing these extras has gone on increasing faster and faster, till
to-day one man will weave, for instance, as much cloth in a week as
will clothe a whole village for years:  and the real question of
civilization has always been what are we to do with this extra
produce of labour--a question which the phantom, fear of starvation,
and its fellow, desire of domination, has driven men to answer pretty
badly always, and worst of all perhaps in these present days, when
the extra produce has grown with such prodigious speed.  The
practical answer has always been for man to struggle with his fellow
for private possession of undue shares of these extras, and all kinds
of devices have been employed by those who found themselves in
possession of the power of taking them from others to keep those whom
they had robbed in perpetual subjection; and these latter, as I have
already hinted, had no chance of resisting this fleecing as long as
they were few and scattered, and consequently could have little sense
of their common oppression.  But now that, owing to the very pursuit
of these undue shares of profit, or extra earnings, men have become
more dependent on each other for production, and have been driven, as
I said before, to combine together for that end more completely, the
power of the workers--that is to say, of the robbed or fleeced class-
-has enormously increased, and it only remains for them to understand
that they have this power.  When they do that they will be able to
give the right answer to the question what is to be done with the
extra products of labour over and above what will keep the labourer
alive to labour:  which answer is, that the worker will have all that
he produces, and not be fleeced at all:  and remember that he
produces collectively, and therefore he will do effectively what work
is required of him according to his capacity, and of the produce of
that work he will have what he needs; because, you see, he cannot USE
more than he needs--he can only WASTE it.

If this arrangement seems to you preposterously ideal, as it well
may, looking at our present condition, I must back it up by saying
that when men are organized so that their labour is not wasted, they
will be relieved from the fear of starvation and the desire of
domination, and will have freedom and leisure to look round and see
what they really do need.

Now something of that I can conceive for my own self, and I will lay
my ideas before you, so that you may compare them with your own,
asking you always to remember that the very differences in men's
capacities and desires, after the common need of food and shelter is
satisfied, will make it easier to deal with their desires in a
communal state of things.

What is it that I need, therefore, which my surrounding circumstances
can give me--my dealings with my fellow-men--setting aside inevitable
accidents which co-operation and forethought cannot control, if there
be such?

Well, first of all I claim good health; and I say that a vast
proportion of people in civilization scarcely even know what that
means.  To feel mere life a pleasure; to enjoy the moving one's limbs
and exercising one's bodily powers; to play, as it were, with sun and
wind and rain; to rejoice in satisfying the due bodily appetites of a
human animal without fear of degradation or sense of wrong-doing:
yes, and therewithal to be well formed, straight-limbed, strongly
knit, expressive of countenance--to be, in a word, beautiful--that
also I claim.  If we cannot have this claim satisfied, we are but
poor creatures after all; and I claim it in the teeth of those
terrible doctrines of asceticism, which, born of the despair of the
oppressed and degraded, have been for so many ages used as
instruments for the continuance of that oppression and degradation.

And I believe that this claim for a healthy body for all of us
carries with it all other due claims:  for who knows where the seeds
of disease which even rich people suffer from were first sown:  from
the luxury of an ancestor, perhaps; yet often, I suspect, from his
poverty.  And for the poor:  a distinguished physicist has said that
the poor suffer always from one disease--hunger; and at least I know
this, that if a man is overworked in any degree he cannot enjoy the
sort of health I am speaking of; nor can he if he is continually
chained to one dull round of mechanical work, with no hope at the
other end of it; nor if he lives in continual sordid anxiety for his
livelihood, nor if he is ill-housed, nor if he is deprived of all
enjoyment of the natural beauty of the world, nor if he has no
amusement to quicken the flow of his spirits from time to time:  all
these things, which touch more or less directly on his bodily
condition, are born of the claim I make to live in good health;
indeed, I suspect that these good conditions must have been in force
for several generations before a population in general will be really
healthy, as I have hinted above; but also I doubt not that in the
course of time they would, joined to other conditions, of which more
hereafter, gradually breed such a population, living in enjoyment of
animal life at least, happy therefore, and beautiful according to the
beauty of their race.  On this point I may note that the very
variations in the races of men are caused by the conditions under
which they live, and though in these rougher parts of the world we
lack some of the advantages of climate and surroundings, yet, if we
were working for livelihood and not for profit, we might easily
neutralize many of the disadvantages of our climate, at least enough
give due scope to the full development of our race.

Now the next thing I claim is education.  And you must not say that
every English child is educated now; that sort of education will not
answer my claim, though I cheerfully admit it is something:
something, and yet after all only class education.  What I claim is
liberal education; opportunity, that is, to have my share of whatever
knowledge there is in the world according to my capacity or bent of
mind, historical or scientific; and also to have my share of skill of
hand which is about in the world, either in the industrial
handicrafts or in the fine arts; picture-painting, sculpture, music,
acting, or the like:  I claim to be taught, if I can be taught, more
than one craft to exercise for the benefit of the community.  You may
think this a large claim, but I am clear it is not too large a claim
if the community is to have any gain out of my special capacities, if
we are not all to be beaten down to a dull level of mediocrity as we
are now, all but the very strongest and toughest of us.

But also I know that this claim for education involves one for public
advantages in the shape of public libraries, schools, and the like,
such as no private person, not even the richest, could command:  but
these I claim very confidently, being sure that no reasonable
community could bear to be without such helps to a decent life.

Again, the claim for education involves a claim for abundant leisure,
which once more I make with confidence; because when once we have
shaken off the slavery of profit, labour would be organized so
unwastefully that no heavy burden would be laid on the individual
citizens; every one of whom as a matter of course would have to pay
his toll of some obviously useful work.  At present you must note
that all the amazing machinery which we have invented has served only
to increase the amount of profit-bearing wares; in other words, to
increase the amount of profit pouched by individuals for their own
advantage, part of which profit they use as capital for the
production of more profit, with ever the same waste attached to it;
and part as private riches or means for luxurious living, which again
is sheer waste--is in fact to be looked on as a kind of bonfire on
which rich men burn up the product of the labour they have fleeced
from the workers beyond what they themselves can use.  So I say that,
in spite of our inventions, no worker works under the present system
an hour the less on account of those labour-saving machines, so-
called.  But under a happier state of things they would be used
simply for saving labour, with the result of a vast amount of leisure
gained for the community to be added to that gained by the avoidance
of the waste of useless luxury, and the abolition of the service of
commercial war.

And I may say that as to that leisure, as I should in no case do any
harm to any one with it, so I should often do some direct good to the
community with it, by practising arts or occupations for my hands or
brain which would give pleasure to many of the citizens; in other
words, a great deal of the best work done would be done in the
leisure time of men relieved from any anxiety as to their livelihood,
and eager to exercise their special talent, as all men, nay, all
animals are.

Now, again, this leisure would enable me to please myself and expand
my mind by travelling if I had a mind to it:  because, say, for
instance, that I were a shoemaker; if due social order were
established, it by no means follows that I should always be obliged
to make shoes in one place; a due amount of easily conceivable
arrangement would enable me to make shoes in Rome, say, for three
months, and to come back with new ideas of building, gathered from
the sight of the works of past ages, amongst other things which would
perhaps be of service in London.

But now, in order that my leisure might not degenerate into idleness
and aimlessness, I must set up a claim for due work to do.  Nothing
to my mind is more important than this demand, and I must ask your
leave to say something about it.  I have mentioned that I should
probably use my leisure for doing a good deal of what is now called
work; but it is clear that if I am a member of a Socialist Community
I must do my due share of rougher work than this--my due share of
what my capacity enables me to do, that is; no fitting of me to a
Procrustean bed; but even that share of work necessary to the
existence of the simplest social life must, in the first place,
whatever else it is, be reasonable work; that is, it must be such
work as a good citizen can see the necessity for; as a member of the
community, I must have agreed to do it.

To take two strong instances of the contrary, I won't submit to be
dressed up in red and marched off to shoot at my French or German or
Arab friend in a quarrel that I don't understand; I will rebel sooner
than do that.

Nor will I submit to waste my time and energies in making some
trifling toy which I know only a fool can desire; I will rebel sooner
than do that.

However, you may be sure that in a state of social order I shall have
no need to rebel against any such pieces of unreason; only I am
forced to speak from the way we live to the way we might live.

Again, if the necessary reasonable work be of a mechanical kind, I
must be helped to do it by a machine, not to cheapen my labour, but
so that as little time as possible may be spent upon it, and that I
may be able to think of other things while am tending the machine.
And if the work be specially rough or exhausting, you will, I am
sure, agree with me in saying that I must take turns in doing it with
other people; I mean I mustn't, for instance, be expected to spend my
working hours always at the bottom of a coal-pit.  I think such work
as that ought to be largely volunteer work, and done, as I say, in
spells.  And what I say of very rough work I say also of nasty work.
On the other hand, I should think very little of the manhood of a
stout and healthy man who did not feel a pleasure in doing rough
work; always supposing him to work under the conditions I have been
speaking of--namely, feeling that it was useful (and consequently
honoured), and that it was not continuous or hopeless, and that he
was really doing it of his own free will.

The last claim I make for my work is that the places I worked in,
factories or workshops, should be pleasant, just as the fields where
our most necessary work is done are pleasant.  Believe me there is
nothing in the world to prevent this being done, save the necessity
of making profits on all wares; in other words, the wares are
cheapened at the expense of people being forced to work in crowded,
unwholesome, squalid, noisy dens:  that is to say, they are cheapened
at the expense of the workman's life.

Well, so much for my claims as to my NECESSARY work, my tribute to
the community.  I believe people would find, as they advanced in
their capacity for carrying on social order, that life so lived was
much less expensive than we now can have any idea of; and that, after
a little, people would rather be anxious to seek work than to avoid
it; that our working hours would rather be merry parties of men and
maids, young men and old enjoying themselves over their work, than
the grumpy weariness it mostly is now.  Then would come the time for
the new birth of art, so much talked of, so long deferred; people
could not help showing their mirth and pleasure in their work, and
would be always wishing to express it in a tangible and more or less
enduring form, and the workshop would once more be a school of art,
whose influence no one could escape from.

And, again, that word art leads me to my last claim, which is that
the material surroundings of my life should be pleasant, generous,
and beautiful; that I know is a large claim, but this I will say
about it, that if it cannot be satisfied, if every civilized
community cannot provide such surroundings for all its members, I do
not want the world to go on; it is a mere misery that man has ever
existed.  I do not think it possible under the present circumstances
to speak too strongly on this point.  I feel sure that the time will
come when people will find it difficult to believe that a rich
community such as ours, having such command over external Nature,
could have submitted to live such a mean, shabby, dirty life as we
do.

And once for all, there is nothing in our circumstances save the
hunting of profit that drives us into it.  It is profit which draws
men into enormous unmanageable aggregations called towns, for
instance; profit which crowds them up when they are there into
quarters without gardens or open spaces; profit which won't take the
most ordinary precautions against wrapping a whole district in a
cloud of sulphurous smoke; which turns beautiful rivers into filthy
sewers; which condemns all but the rich to live in houses idiotically
cramped and confined at the best, and at the worst in houses for
whose wretchedness there is no name.

I say it is almost incredible that we should bear such crass
stupidity as this; nor should we if we could help it.  We shall not
bear it when the workers get out of their heads that they are but an
appendage to profit-grinding, that the more profits that are made the
more employment at high wages there will be for them, and that
therefore all the incredible filth, disorder, and degradation of
modern civilization are signs of their prosperity.  So far from that,
they are signs of their slavery.  When they are no longer slaves they
will claim as a matter of course that every man and every family
should be generously lodged; that every child should be able to play
in a garden close to the place his parents live in; that the houses
should by their obvious decency and order be ornaments to Nature, not
disfigurements of it; for the decency and order above-mentioned when
carried to the due pitch would most assuredly lead to beauty in
building.  All this, of course, would mean the people--that is, all
society--duly organized, having in its own hands the means of
production, to be OWNED by no individual, but used by all as occasion
called for its use, and can only be done on those terms; on any other
terms people will be driven to accumulate private wealth for
themselves, and thus, as we have seen, to waste the goods of the
community and perpetuate the division into classes, which means
continual war and waste.

As to what extent it may be necessary or desirable for people under
social order to live in common, we may differ pretty much according
to our tendencies towards social life.  For my part I can't see why
we should think it a hardship to eat with the people we work with; I
am sure that as to many things, such as valuable books, pictures, and
splendour of surroundings, we shall find it better to club our means
together; and I must say that often when I have been sickened by the
stupidity of the mean idiotic rabbit warrens that rich men build for
themselves in Bayswater and elsewhere, I console myself with visions
of the noble communal hall of the future, unsparing of materials,
generous in worthy ornament, alive with the noblest thoughts of our
time, and the past, embodied in the best art which a free and manly
people could produce; such an abode of man as no private enterprise
could come anywhere near for beauty and fitness, because only
collective thought and collective life could cherish the aspirations
which would give birth to its beauty, or have the skill and leisure
to carry them out.  I for my part should think it much the reverse of
a hardship if I had to read my books and meet my friends in such a
place; nor do I think I am better off to live in a vulgar stuccoed
house crowded with upholstery that I despise, in all respects
degrading to the mind and enervating to the body to live in, simply
because I call it my own, or my house.

It is not an original remark, but I make it here, that my home is
where I meet people with whom I sympathise, whom I love.

Well, that is my opinion as a middle-class man.  Whether a working-
class man would think his family possession of his wretched little
room better than his share of the palace of which I have spoken, I
must leave to his opinion, and to the imaginations of the middle
class, who perhaps may sometimes conceive the fact that the said
worker is cramped for space and comfort--say on washing-day.

Before I leave this matter of the surroundings of life, I wish to
meet a possible objection.  I have spoken of machinery being used
freely for releasing people from the more mechanical and repulsive
part of necessary labour; and I know that to some cultivated people,
people of the artistic turn of mind, machinery is particularly
distasteful, and they will be apt to say you will never get your
surroundings pleasant so long as you are surrounded by machinery.  I
don't quite admit that; it is the allowing machines to be our masters
and not our servants that so injures the beauty of life nowadays.  In
other words, it is the token of the terrible crime we have fallen
into of using our control of the powers of Nature for the purpose of
enslaving people, we careless meantime of how much happiness we rob
their lives of.

Yet for the consolation of the artists I will say that I believe
indeed that a state of social order would probably lead at first to a
great development of machinery for really useful purposes, because
people will still be anxious about getting through the work necessary
to holding society together; but that after a while they will find
that there is not so much work to do as they expected, and that then
they will have leisure to reconsider the whole subject; and if it
seems to them that a certain industry would be carried on more
pleasantly as regards the worker, and more effectually as regards the
goods, by using hand-work rather than machinery, they will certainly
get rid of their machinery, because it will be possible for them to
do so.  It isn't possible now; we are not at liberty to do so; we are
slaves to the monsters which we have created.  And I have a kind of
hope that the very elaboration of machinery in a society whose
purpose is not the multiplication of labour, as it now is, but the
carrying on of a pleasant life, as it would be under social order--
that the elaboration of machinery, I say, will lead the
simplification of life, and so once more to the limitation of
machinery.

Well, I will now let my claims for decent life stand as I have made
them.  To sum them up in brief, they are:  First, a healthy body;
second, an active mind in sympathy with the past, the present, and
the future; thirdly, occupation fit for a healthy body and an active
mind; and fourthly, a beautiful world to live in.

These are the conditions of life which the refined man of all ages
has set before him as the thing above all others to be attained.  Too
often he has been so foiled in their pursuit that he has turned
longing eyes backward to the days before civilization, when man's
sole business was getting himself food from day to day, and hope was
dormant in him, or at least could not be expressed by him.

Indeed, if civilization (as many think) forbids the realization of
the hope to attain such conditions of life, then civilization forbids
mankind to be happy; and if that be the case, then let us stifle all
aspirations towards progress--nay, all feelings of mutual good-will
and affection between men--and snatch each one of us what we can from
the heap of wealth that fools create for rogues to grow fat on; or
better still, let us as speedily as possible find some means of dying
like men, since we are forbidden to live like men.

Rather, however, take courage, and believe that we of this age, in
spite of all its torment and disorder, have been born to a wonderful
heritage fashioned of the work of those that have gone before us; and
that the day of the organization of man is dawning.  It is not we who
can build up the new social order; the past ages have done the most
of that work for us; but we can clear our eyes to the signs of the
times, and we shall then see that the attainment of a good condition
of life is being made possible for us, and that it is now our
business to stretch out our hands to take it.

And how?  Chiefly, I think, by educating people to a sense of their
real capacities as men, so that they may be able to use to their own
good the political power which is rapidly being thrust upon them; to
get them to see that the old system of organizing labour FOR
INDIVIDUAL PROFIT is becoming unmanageable, and that the whole people
have now got to choose between the confusion resulting from the break
up of that system and the determination to take in hand the labour
now organized for profit, and use its organization for the livelihood
of the community:  to get people to see that individual profit-makers
are not a necessity for labour but an obstruction to it, and that not
only or chiefly because they are the perpetual pensioners of labour,
as they are, but rather because of the waste which their existence as
a class necessitates.  All this we have to teach people, when we have
taught ourselves; and I admit that the work is long and burdensome;
as I began by saying, people have been made so timorous of change by
the terror of starvation that even the unluckiest of them are stolid
and hard to move.  Hard as the work is, however, its reward is not
doubtful.  The mere fact that a body of men, however small, are
banded together as Socialist missionaries shows that the change is
going on.  As the working-classes, the real organic part of society,
take in these ideas, hope will arise in them, and they will claim
changes in society, many of which doubtless will not tend directly
towards their emancipation, because they will be claimed without due
knowledge of the one thing necessary to claim, EQUALITY OF CONDITION;
but which indirectly will help to break up our rotten sham society,
while that claim for equality of condition will be made constantly
and with growing loudness till it MUST be listened to, and then at
last it will only be a step over the border and the civilized world
will be socialized; and, looking back on what has been, we shall be
astonished to think of how long we submitted to live as we live now.



WHIGS, DEMOCRATS, AND SOCIALISTS. {2}



What is the state of parties in England to-day?  How shall we
enumerate them?  The Whigs, who stand first on the list in my title,
are considered generally to be the survival of an old historical
party once looked on as having democratic tendencies, but now the
hope of all who would stand soberly on the ancient ways.  Besides
these, there are Tories also, the descendants of the stout defenders
of Church and State and the divine right of kings.

Now, I don't mean to say but that at the back of this ancient name of
Tory there lies a great mass of genuine Conservative feeling, held by
people who, if they had their own way, would play some rather
fantastic tricks, I fancy; nay, even might in the course of time be
somewhat rough with such people as are in this hall at present. {3}
But this feeling, after all, is only a sentiment now; all practical
hope has died out of it, and these worthy people CANNOT have their
own way.  It is true that they elect members of Parliament, who talk
very big to please them, and sometimes even they manage to get a
Government into power that nominally represents their sentiment, but
when that happens the said Government is forced, even when its party
has a majority in the House of Commons, to take a much lower
standpoint than the high Tory ideal; the utmost that the real Tory
party can do, even when backed by the Primrose League and its sham
hierarchy, is to delude the electors to return Tories to Parliament
to pass measures more akin to Radicalism than the Whigs durst
attempt, so that, though there are Tories, there is no Tory party in
England.

On the other hand, there is a party, which I can call for the present
by no other name than Whig, which is both numerous and very powerful,
and which does, in fact, govern England, and to my mind will always
do so as long as the present constitutional Parliament lasts.  Of
course, like all parties it includes men of various shades of
opinion, from the Tory-tinted Whiggery of Lord Salisbury to the
Radical-tinted Whiggery of Mr. Chamberlain's present tail.  Neither
do I mean to say that they are conscious of being a united party; on
the contrary, the groups will sometimes oppose each other furiously
at elections, and perhaps the more simple-minded of them really think
that it is a matter of importance to the nation which section of them
may be in power; but they may always be reckoned upon to be in their
places and vote against any measure which carries with it a real
attack on our constitutional system; surely very naturally, since
they are there for no other purpose than to do so.  They are, and
always must be, conscious defenders of the present system, political
and economical, as long as they have any cohesion as Tories, Whigs,
Liberals, or even Radicals.  Not one of them probably would go such a
very short journey towards revolution as the abolition of the House
of Lords.  A one-chamber Parliament would seem to them an impious
horror, and the abolition of the monarchy they would consider a
serious inconvenience to the London tradesman.

Now this is the real Parliamentary Party, at present divided into
jarring sections under the influence of the survival of the party
warfare of the last few generations, but which already shows signs of
sinking its differences so as to offer a solid front of resistance to
the growing instinct which on its side will before long result in a
party claiming full economical as well as political freedom for the
whole people.

But is there nothing in Parliament, or seeking entrance to it, except
this variously tinted Whiggery, this Harlequin of Reaction?  Well,
inside Parliament, setting aside the Irish party, which is, we may
now well hope, merely temporarily there, there is not much.  It is
not among people of "wealth and local influence," who I see are
supposed to be the only available candidates for Parliament of a
recognized party, that you will find the elements of revolution.  We
will grant that there are some few genuine Democrats there, and let
them pass.  But outside there are undoubtedly many who are genuine
Democrats, and who have it in their heads that it is both possible
and desirable to capture the constitutional Parliament and turn it
into a real popular assembly, which, with the people behind it, might
lead us peaceably and constitutionally into the great Revolution
which all THOUGHTFUL men desire to bring about; all thoughtful men,
that is, who do not belong to the consciously cynical Tories, i.e.,
men determined, whether it be just or unjust, good for humanity or
bad for it, to keep the people down as long as they can, which they
hope, very naturally, will be as long as they live.

To capture Parliament and turn it into a popular but constitutional
assembly is, I must conclude, the aspiration of the genuine Democrats
wherever they may be found; that is their idea of the first step of
the Democratic policy.  The questions to be asked of this, as of all
other policies, are first, What is the end proposed by it? and
secondly, Are they likely to succeed?  As to the end proposed, I
think there is much difference of opinion.  Some Democrats would
answer from the merely political point of view, and say:  Universal
suffrage, payment of members, annual Parliaments, abolition of the
House of Lords, abolition of the monarchy, and so forth.  I would
answer this by saying:  After all, these are not ends, but means to
an end; and passing by the fact that the last two are not
constitutional measures, and so could not be brought about without
actual rebellion, I would say if you had gained all these things, and
more, all you would have done would have been to establish the
ascendancy of the Democratic party; having so established it, you
would then have to find out by the usual party means what that
Democratic party meant, and you would find that your triumph in mere
politics would lead you back again exactly to the place you started
from.  You would be Whigs under a different name.  Monarchy, House of
Lords, pensions, standing army, and the rest of it, are only supports
to the present social system--the PRIVILEGE based on the wages and
capital system of production--and are worth nothing except as
supports to it.  If you are determined to support that system,
therefore, you had better leave these things alone.  The real masters
of Society, the real tyrants of the people, are the Landlords and
Capitalists, whom your political triumph would not interfere with.

Then, as now, there would be a proletariat and a moneyed class.
Then, as now, it would be possible sometimes for a diligent,
energetic man, with his mind set wholly on such success, to climb out
of the proletariat into the moneyed class, there to sweat as he once
was sweated; which, my friends, is, if you will excuse the word, your
ridiculous idea of freedom of contract.

The sole and utmost success of your policy would be that it might
raise up a strong opposition to the condition of things which it
would be your function to uphold; but most probably such opposition
would still be outside Parliament, and not in it; you would have made
a revolution, probably not without bloodshed, only to show people the
necessity for another revolution the very next day.

Will you think the example of America too trite?  Anyhow, consider
it!  A country with universal suffrage, no king, no House of Lords,
no privilege as you fondly think; only a little standing army,
chiefly used for the murder of red-skins; a democracy after your
model; and with all that, a society corrupt to the core, and at this
moment engaged in suppressing freedom with just the same reckless
brutality and blind ignorance as the Czar of all the Russias uses.
{4}

But it will be said, and certainly with much truth, that not all the
Democrats are for mere political reform.  I say that I believe that
this is true, and it is a very important truth too.  I will go
farther, and will say that all those Democrats who can be
distinguished from Whigs do intend social reforms which they hope
will somewhat alter the relations of the classes towards each other;
and there is, generally speaking, amongst Democrats a leaning towards
a kind of limited State-Socialism, and it is through that that they
hope to bring about a peaceful revolution, which, if it does not
introduce a condition of equality, will at least make the workers
better off and contented with their lot.

They hope to get a body of representatives elected to Parliament, and
by them to get measure after measure passed which will tend towards
this goal; nor would some of them, perhaps most of them, be
discontented if by this means we could glide into complete State-
Socialism.  I think that the present Democrats are widely tinged with
this idea, and to me it is a matter of hope that it is so; whatever
of error there is in it, it means advance beyond the complete
barrenness of the mere political programme.

Yet I must point out to these semi-Socialist Democrats that in the
first place they will be made the cat's-paw of some of the wilier of
the Whigs.  There are several of these measures which look to some
Socialistic, as, for instance, the allotments scheme, and other
schemes tending toward peasant proprietorship, co-operation, and the
like, but which after all, in spite of their benevolent appearance,
are really weapons in the hands of reactionaries, having for their
real object the creation of a new middle-class made out of the
working-class and at their expense; the raising, in short, of a new
army against the attack of the disinherited.

There is no end to this kind of dodge, nor will be apparently till
there is an end of the class which tries it on; and a great many of
the Democrats will be amused and absorbed by it from time to time.
They call this sort of nonsense "practical;" it SEEMS like doing
something, while the steady propaganda of a principle which must
prevail in the end is, according to them, doing nothing, and is
unpractical.  For the rest, it is not likely to become dangerous,
further than as it clogs the wheels of the real movement somewhat,
because it is sometimes a mere piece of reaction, as when, for
instance, it takes the form of peasant proprietorship, flying right
in the face of the commercial development of the day, which tends
ever more and more towards the aggregation of capital, thereby
smoothing the way for the organized possession of the means of
production by the workers when the true revolution shall come:
while, on the other hand, when this attempt to manufacture a new
middle-class takes the form of co-operation and the like, it is not
dangerous, because it means nothing more than a slightly altered form
of joint-stockery, and everybody almost is beginning to see this.
The greed of men stimulated by the spectacle of profit-making all
around them, and also by the burden of the interest on the money
which they have been obliged to borrow, will not allow them even to
approach a true system of co-operation.  Those benefited by the
transaction presently become eager shareholders in a commercial
speculation, and if they are working-men, as they often are, they are
also capitalists.  The enormous commercial success of the great co-
operative societies, and the absolute no-effect of that success on
the social conditions of the workers, are sufficient tokens of what
this non-political co-operation must come to:  "Nothing--it shall not
be less."

But again, it may be said, some of the Democrats go farther than
this; they take up actual pieces of Socialism, and are more than
inclined to support them.  Nationalization of the land, or of
railways, or cumulative taxation on incomes, or limiting the right of
inheritance, or new factory laws, or the restriction by law of the
day's labour--one of these, or more than one sometimes, the Democrats
will support, and see absolute salvation in these one or two planks
of the platform.  All this I admit, and once again say it is a
hopeful sign, and yet once again I say there is a snare in it--a
snake lies lurking in the grass.

Those who think that they can deal with our present system in this
piecemeal way very much underrate the strength of the tremendous
organization under which we live, and which appoints to each of us
his place, and if we do not chance to fit it, grinds us down till we
do.  Nothing but a tremendous force can deal with this force; it will
not suffer itself to be dismembered, nor to lose anything which
really is its essence without putting forth all its force in
resistance; rather than lose anything which it considers of
importance, it will pull the roof of the world down upon its head.
For, indeed, I grant these semi-Socialist Democrats that there is one
hope for their tampering piecemeal with our Society; if by chance
they can excite people into seriously, however blindly, claiming one
or other of these things in question, and could be successful in
Parliament in driving it through, they would certainly draw on a
great civil war, and such a war once let loose would not end but
either with the full triumph of Socialism or its extinction for the
present; it would be impossible to limit the aim of the struggle; nor
can we even guess at the course which it would take, except that it
could not be a matter of compromise.  But suppose the Democratic
party peaceably successful on this new basis of semi-State Socialism,
what would it all mean?  Attempts to balance the two classes whose
interests are opposed to each other, a mere ignoring of this
antagonism which has led us through so many centuries to where we are
now, and then, after a period of disappointment and disaster, the
naked conflict once more; a revolution made, and another immediately
necessary on its morrow!

Yet, indeed, it will not come to that; for, whatever may be the aims
of the Democrats, they will not succeed in getting themselves into a
position from whence they could make the attempt to realize them.  I
have said there are Tories and yet no real Tory party; so also it
seems to me that there are Democrats but no Democratic party; at
present they are used by the leaders of the parliamentary factions,
and also kept at a distance by them from any real power.  If they by
hook or crook managed to get a number of members into Parliament,
they would find out their differences very speedily under the
influence of party rule; in point of fact, the Democrats are not a
party; because they have no principles other than the old Whig-
Radical ones, extended in some cases so as to take in a little semi-
Socialism which the march of events has forced on them--that is, they
gravitate on one side to the Whigs and on the other to the
Socialists.  Whenever, if ever, they begin to be a power in the
elections and get members in the House, the temptation to be members
of a real live party which may have the government of the country in
its hands, the temptation to what is (facetiously, I suppose) called
practical politics, will be too much for many, even of those who
gravitate towards Socialism; a quasi-Democratic parliamentary party,
therefore, would probably be merely a recruiting ground, a nursery
for the left wing of the Whigs; though it would indeed leave behind
some small nucleus of opposition, the principles of which, however,
would be vague and floating, so that it would be but a powerless
group after all.

The future of the constitutional Parliament, therefore, it seems to
me, is a perpetual Whig Rump, which will yield to pressure when mere
political reforms are attempted to be got out of it, but will be
quite immovable towards any real change in social and economical
matters; that is to say, so far as it may be conscious of the attack;
for I grant that it may be BETRAYED into passing semi-State-
Socialistic measures, which will do this amount of good, that they
will help to entangle commerce in difficulties, and so add to
discontent by creating suffering; suffering of which the people will
not understand the causes definitely, but which their instinct will
tell them truly is brought about by GOVERNMENT, and that, too, the
only kind of government which they can have so long as the
constitutional Parliament lasts.

Now, if you think I have exaggerated the power of the Whigs, that is,
of solid, dead, unmoving resistance to progress, I must call your
attention to the events of the last few weeks.  Here has been a
measure of pacification proposed; at the least and worst an attempt
to enter upon a pacification of a weary and miserable quarrel many
centuries old.  The British people, in spite of their hereditary
prejudice against the Irish, were not averse to the measure; the
Tories were, as usual, powerless against it; yet so strong has been
the vis inertiae of Whiggery that it has won a notable victory over
common-sense and sentiment combined, and has drawn over to it a
section of those hitherto known as Radicals, and probably would have
drawn all Radicals over but for the personal ascendancy of Mr.
Gladstone.  The Whigs, seeing, if but dimly, that this Irish
Independence meant an attack on property, have been successful in
snatching the promised peace out of the people's hands, and in
preparing all kinds of entanglement and confusion for us for a long
while in their steady resistance to even the beginnings of
revolution.

This, therefore, is what Parliament looks to me:  a solid central
party, with mere nebulous opposition on the right hand and on the
left.  The people governed; that is to say, fair play amongst
themselves for the money-privileged classes to make the most of their
privilege, and to fight sturdily with each other in doing so; but the
government concealed as much as possible, and also as long as
possible; that is to say, the government resting on an assumed
necessary eternity of privilege to monopolize the means of the
fructification of labour.

For so long as that assumption is accepted by the ignorance of the
people, the Great Whig Rump will remain inexpugnable, but as soon as
the people's eyes are opened, even partially--and they begin to
understand the meaning of the words, the Emancipation of Labour--we
shall begin to have an assured hope of throwing off the basest and
most sordid tyranny which the world has yet seen, the tyranny of so-
called Constitutionalism.

How, then, are the people's eyes to be opened?  By the force evolved
from the final triumph and consequent corruption of Commercial
Whiggery, which force will include in it a recognition of its
constructive activity by intelligent people on the one hand, and on
the other half-blind instinctive struggles to use its destructive
activity on the part of those who suffer and have not been allowed to
think; and, to boot, a great deal that goes between those two
extremes.

In this turmoil, all those who can be truly called Socialists will be
involved.  The modern development of the great class-struggle has
forced us to think, our thoughts force us to speak, and our hopes
force us to try to get a hearing from the people.  Nor can one tell
how far our words will carry, so to say.  The most moderate
exposition of our principles will bear with it the seeds of
disruption; nor can we tell what form that disruption will take.

One and all, then, we are responsible for the enunciation of
Socialist principles and of the consequences which may flow from
their general acceptance, whatever that may be.  This responsibility
no Socialist can shake off by declarations against physical force and
in favour of constitutional methods of agitation; we are attacking
the Constitution with the very beginnings, the mere lispings, of
Socialism.

Whiggery, therefore, in its various forms, is the representative of
Constitutionalism--is the outward expression of monopoly and
consequent artificial restraints on labour and life; and there is
only one expression of the force which will destroy Whiggery, and
that is Socialism; and on the right hand and on the left Toryism and
Radicalism will melt into Whiggery--are doing so now--and Socialism
has got to absorb all that is not Whig in Radicalism.

Then comes the question, What is the policy of Socialism?  If Toryism
and Democracy are only nebulous masses of opposition to the solid
centre of Whiggery, what can we call Socialism?

Well, at present, in England at least, Socialism is not a party, but
a sect.  That is sometimes brought against it as a taunt; but I am
not dismayed by it; for I can conceive of a sect--nay, I have heard
of one--becoming a very formidable power, and becoming so by dint of
its long remaining a sect.  So I think it is quite possible that
Socialism will remain a sect till the very eve of the last stroke
that completes the revolution, after which it will melt into the new
Society.  And is it not sects, bodies of definite, uncompromising
principles, that lead us into revolutions?  Was it not so in the
Cromwellian times?  Nay, have not the Fenian sect, even in our own
days, made Home Rule possible?  They may give birth to parties,
though not parties themselves.  And what should a sect like we are
have to do in the parliamentary struggle--we who have an ideal to
keep always before ourselves and others, and who cannot accept
compromise; who can see nothing that can give us rest for a minute
save the emancipation of labour, which will be brought about by the
workers gaining possession of all the means of the fructification of
labour; and who, even when that is gained, shall have pure Communism
ahead to strive for?

What are we to do, then?  Stand by and look on?  Not exactly.  Yet we
may look on other people doing their work while we do ours.  They are
already beginning, as I have said, to stumble about with attempts at
State Socialism.  Let them make their experiments and blunders, and
prepare the way for us by so doing.  And our own business?  Well, we-
-sect or party, or group of self-seekers, madmen, and poets, which
you will--are at least the only set of people who have been able to
see that there is and has been a great class-struggle going on.
Further, we can see that this class-struggle cannot come to an end
till the classes themselves do:  one class must absorb the other.
Which, then?  Surely the useful one, the one that the world lives by,
and on.  The business of the people at present is to make it
impossible for the useless, non-producing class to live; while the
business of Constitutionalism is, on the contrary, to make it
possible for them to live.  And our business is to help to make the
people CONSCIOUS of this great antagonism between the people and
Constitutionalism; and meantime to let Constitutionalism go on with
its government unhelped by us at least, until it at last becomes
CONSCIOUS of its burden of the people's hate, of the people's
knowledge that it is disinherited, which we shall have done our best
to further by any means that we could.

As to Socialists in Parliament, there are two words about that.  If
they go there to take a part in carrying on Constitutionalism by
palliating the evils of the system, and so helping our rulers to bear
their burden of government, I for one, and so far as their action
therein goes, cannot call them Socialists at all.  But if they go
there with the intention of doing what they can towards the
disruption of Parliament, that is a matter of tactics for the time
being; but even here I cannot help seeing the danger of their being
seduced from their true errand, and I fear that they might become, on
the terms above mentioned, simply supporters of the very thing they
set out to undo.

I say that our work lies quite outside Parliament, and it is to help
to educate the people by every and any means that may be effective;
and the knowledge we have to help them to is threefold--to know their
own, to know how to take their own, and to know how to use their own.



FEUDAL ENGLAND



It is true that the Norman Conquest found a certain kind of feudality
in existence in England--a feudality which was developed from the
customs of the Teutonic tribes with no admixture of Roman law; and
also that even before the Conquest this country was slowly beginning
to be mixed up with the affairs of the Continent of Europe, and that
not only with the kindred nations of Scandinavia, but with the
Romanized countries also.  But the Conquest of Duke William did
introduce the complete Feudal system into the country; and it also
connected it by strong bonds to the Romanized countries, and yet by
so doing laid the first foundations of national feeling in England.
The English felt their kinship with the Norsemen or the Danes, and
did not suffer from their conquests when they had become complete,
and when, consequently, mere immediate violence had disappeared from
them; their feeling was tribal rather than national; but they could
have no sense of tribal unity with the varied populations of the
provinces which mere dynastical events had strung together into the
dominion, the manor, one may say, of the foreign princes of Normandy
and Anjou; and, as the kings who ruled them gradually got pushed out
of their French possessions, England began to struggle against the
domination of men felt to be foreigners, and so gradually became
conscious of her separate nationality, though still only in a
fashion, as the manor of an ENGLISH lord.

It is beyond the scope of this piece to give anything like a
connected story, even of the slightest, of the course of events
between the conquest of Duke William and the fully developed
mediaeval period of the fourteenth century, which is the England that
I have before my eyes as Mediaeval or Feudal.  That period of the
fourteenth century united the developments of the elements which had
been stirring in Europe since the final fall of the Roman Empire, and
England shared in the general feeling and spirit of the age,
although, from its position, the course of its history, and to a
certain extent the lives of its people, were different.  It is to
this period, therefore, that I wish in the long run to call your
attention, and I will only say so much about the earlier period as
may be necessary to explain how the people of England got into the
position in which they were found by the Statute of Labourers enacted
by Edward III., and the Peasants' Rebellion in the time of his
grandson and successor, Richard II.

Undoubtedly, then, the Norman Conquest made a complete break in the
continuity of the history of England.  When the Londoners after the
Battle of Hastings accepted Duke William for their king, no doubt
they thought of him as occupying much the same position as that of
the newly slain Harold; or at any rate they looked on him as being
such a king of England as Knut the Dane, who had also conquered the
country; and probably William himself thought no otherwise; but the
event was quite different; for on the one hand, not only was he a man
of strong character, able, masterful, and a great soldier in the
modern sense of the word, but he had at his back his wealthy dukedom
of Normandy, which he had himself reduced to obedience and organized;
and, on the other hand, England lay before him, unorganized, yet
stubbornly rebellious to him; its very disorganization and want of a
centre making it more difficult to deal with by merely overrunning it
with an army levied for that purpose, and backed by a body of house-
carles or guards, which would have been the method of a Scandinavian
or native king in dealing with his rebellious subjects.  Duke
William's necessities and instincts combined led him into a very
different course of action, which determined the future destiny of
the country.  What he did was to quarter upon England an army of
feudal vassals drawn from his obedient dukedom, and to hand over to
them the lordship of the land of England in return for their military
service to him, the suzerain of them all.  Thenceforward, it was
under the rule of these foreign landlords that the people of England
had to develop.

The development of the country as a Teutonic people was checked and
turned aside by this event.  Duke William brought, in fact, his
Normandy into England, which was thereby changed from a Teutonic
people (Old-Norse theod), with the tribal customary law still in use
among them, into a province of Romanized Feudal Europe, a piece of
France, in short; and though in time she did grow into another
England again, she missed for ever in her laws, and still more in her
language and her literature, the chance of developing into a great
homogeneous Teutonic people infused usefully with a mixture of Celtic
blood.

However, this step which Duke William was forced to take further
influenced the future of the country by creating the great order of
the Baronage, and the history of the early period of England is
pretty much that of the struggle of the king with the Baronage and
the Church.  For William fixed the type of the successful English
mediaeval king, of whom Henry II. and Edward I. were the most notable
examples afterwards.  It was, in fact, with him that the struggle
towards monarchical bureaucracy began, which was checked by the
barons, who extorted Magna Charta from King John, and afterwards by
the revolt headed by Simon de Montfort in Henry III.'s reign; was
carried on vigorously by Edward I., and finally successfully finished
by Henry VII. after the long faction-fight of the Wars of the Roses
had weakened the feudal lords so much that they could no longer
assert themselves against the monarchy.

As to the other political struggle of the Middle Ages, the contest
between the Crown and the Church, two things are to be noted; first,
that at least in the earlier period the Church was on the popular
side.  Thomas Beckett was canonized, it is true, formally and by
regular decree; but his memory was held so dear by the people that he
would probably have been canonized informally by them if the holy
seat at Rome had refused to do so.  The second thing to be noted
about the dispute is this, that it was no contest of principle.
According to the mediaeval theory of life and religion, the Church
and the State were one in essence, and but separate manifestations of
the Kingdom of God upon earth, which was part of the Kingdom of God
in heaven.  The king was an officer of that realm and a liegeman of
God.  The doctor of laws and the doctor of physic partook in a degree
of the priestly character.  On the other hand, the Church was not
withdrawn from the every-day life of men; the division into a worldly
and spiritual life, neither of which had much to do with the other,
was a creation of the protestantism of the Reformation, and had no
place in the practice at least of the mediaeval Church, which we
cannot too carefully remember is little more represented by modern
Catholicism than by modern Protestantism.  The contest, therefore,
between the Crown and the Church was a mere bickering between two
bodies, without any essential antagonism between them, as to how far
the administration of either reached; neither dreamed of
subordinating one to the other, far less of extinguishing one by the
other.

The history of the Crusades, by-the-way, illustrates very
emphatically this position of the Church in the Middle Ages.  The
foundation of that strange feudal kingdom of Jerusalem, whose very
coat of arms was a solecism in heraldry, whose king had precedence,
in virtue of his place as lord of the centre of Christianity, over
all other kings and princes; the orders of men-at-arms vowed to
poverty and chastity, like the Templars and Knights of St. John; and
above all the unquestioning sense of duty that urged men of all
classes and kinds into the holy war, show how strongly the idea of
God's Kingdom on the earth had taken hold of all men's minds in the
early Middle Ages.  As to the result of the Crusades, they certainly
had their influence on the solidification of Europe and the great
feudal system, at the head of which, in theory at least, were the
Pope and the Kaiser.  For the rest, the intercourse with the East
gave Europe an opportunity of sharing in the mechanical civilization
of the peoples originally dominated by the Arabs, and infused by the
art of Byzantium and Persia, not without some tincture of the
cultivation of the latter classical period.

The stir and movement also of the Crusades, and the necessities in
which they involved the princes and their barons, furthered the
upward movement of the classes that lay below the feudal vassals,
great and little; the principal opportunity for which movement,
however, in England, was given by the continuous struggle between the
Crown and the Church and Baronage.

The early Norman kings, even immediately after the death of the
Conqueror, found themselves involved in this struggle, and were
forced to avail themselves of the help of what had now become the
inferior tribe--the native English, to wit.  Henry I., an able and
ambitious man, understood this so clearly that he made a distinct bid
for the favour of the inferior tribe by marrying an English princess;
and it was by means of the help of his English subjects that he
conquered his Norman subjects, and the field of Tenchebray, which put
the coping-stone on his success, was felt by the English people as an
English victory over the oppressing tribe with which Duke William had
overwhelmed the English people.  It was during this king's reign and
under these influences that the trading and industrial classes began
to rise somewhat.  The merchant gilds were now in their period of
greatest power, and had but just begun, in England at least, to
develop into the corporations of the towns; but the towns themselves
were beginning to gain their freedom and to become an important
element in the society of the time, as little by little they asserted
themselves against the arbitrary rule of the feudal lords, lay or
ecclesiastical:  for as to the latter, it must be remembered that the
Church included in herself the orders or classes into which lay
society was divided, and while by its lower clergy of the parishes
and by the friars it touched the people, its upper clergy were simply
feudal lords; and as the religious fervour of the higher clergy,
which was marked enough in the earlier period of the Middle Ages (in
Anselm, for example), faded out, they became more and more mere
landlords, although from the conditions of their landlordism, living
as they did on their land and amidst of their tenants, they were less
oppressive than the lay landlords.

The order and progress of Henry I.'s reign, which marks the
transition from the mere military camp of the Conqueror to the
mediaeval England I have to dwell upon, was followed by the period of
mere confusion and misery which accompanied the accession of the
princes of Anjou to the throne of England.  In this period the barons
widely became mere violent and illegal robbers; and the castles with
which the land was dotted, and which were begun under the auspices of
the Conqueror as military posts, became mere dens of strong-thieves.

No doubt this made the business of the next able king, Henry II., the
easier.  He was a staunch man of business, and turned himself with
his whole soul towards the establishment of order and the
consolidation of the monarchy, which accordingly took a great stride
under him towards its ultimate goal of bureaucracy.  He would
probably have carried the business still farther, since in his
contest with the Church, in spite of the canonization of Beckett and
the king's formal penance at his tomb, he had in fact gained a
victory for the Crown which it never really lost again; but in his
days England was only a part of the vast dominion of his House, which
included more than half of France, and his struggle with his
feudatories and the French king, which sowed the seed of the loss of
that dominion to the English Crown, took up much of his life, and
finally beat him.

His two immediate successors, Richard I. and John, were good
specimens of the chiefs of their line, almost all of whom were very
able men, having even a touch of genius in them, but therewithal were
such wanton blackguards and scoundrels that one is almost forced to
apply the theological word "wickedness" to them.  Such characters
belong specially to their times, fertile as they were both of great
qualities and of scoundrelism, and in which our own special vice of
hypocrisy was entirely lacking.  John, the second of these two pests,
put the coping-stone on the villany of his family, and lost his
French dominion in the lump.

Under such rascals as these came the turn of the Baronage; and they,
led by Stephen Langton, the archbishop who had been thrust on the
unwilling king by the Pope, united together and forced from him his
assent to Magna Charta, the great, thoroughly well-considered deed,
which is conventionally called the foundation of English Liberty, but
which can only claim to be so on the ground that it was the
confirmation and seal of the complete feudal system in England, and
put the relations between the vassals, the great feudatories, and the
king on a stable basis; since it created, or at least confirmed,
order among these privileged classes, among whom, indeed, it
recognized the towns to a certain extent as part of the great feudal
hierarchy:  so that even by this time they had begun to acquire
status in that hierarchy.

So John passed away, and became not long after an almost mythical
personage, the type of the bad king.  There are still ballads, and
prose stories deduced from these ballads, in existence, which tell
the tale of this strange monster as the English people imagined it.

As they belong to the literature of the fourteenth century, the
period I have undertaken to tell you about specially, I will give you
one of the latter of these concerning the death of King John, for
whom the people imagined a more dramatic cause of death than mere
indigestion, of which in all probability he really died; and you may
take it for a specimen of popular literature of the fourteenth
century.

I can here make bold to quote from memory, without departing very
widely from the old text, since the quaint wording of the original,
and the spirit of bold and blunt heroism which it breathes, have
fixed it in my mind for ever.

The king, you must remember, had halted at Swinestead Abbey, in
Lincolnshire, in his retreat from the hostile barons and their French
allies, and had lost all his baggage by the surprise of the advancing
tide in the Wash; so that he might well be in a somewhat sour mood.

Says the tale:  So the king went to meat in the hall, and before him
was a loaf; and he looked grimly on it and said, 'For how much is
such a loaf sold in this realm?'

'Sir, for one penny,' said they.

Then the king smote the board with his fist and said, 'By God, if I
live for one year such a loaf shall be sold for twelve pence!'

That heard one of the monks who stood thereby, and he thought and
considered that his hour and time to die was come, and that it would
be a good deed to slay so cruel a king and so evil a lord.

So he went into the garden and plucked plums and took out of them the
steles [stalks], and did venom in them each one; and he came before
the king and sat on his knee, and said:

'Sir, by St. Austin, this is fruit of our garden.'

Then the king looked evilly on him and said, 'Assay them, monk!'

So the monk took and ate thereof, nor changed countenance any whit:
and the king ate thereafter.

But presently afterwards the monk swelled and turned blue, and fell
down and died before the king:  then waxed the king sick at heart,
and he also swelled and died, and so he ended his days.

For a while after the death of John and the accession of Henry III.
the Baronage, strengthened by the great Charter and with a weak and
wayward king on the throne, made their step forward in power and
popularity, and the first serious check to the tendency to
monarchical bureaucracy, a kind of elementary aristocratic
constitution, was imposed upon the weakness of Henry III.  Under this
movement of the barons, who in their turn had to seek for the support
of the people, the towns made a fresh step in advance, and Simon de
Montfort, the leader of what for want of a better word must be called
the popular party, was forced by his circumstances to summon to his
Parliament citizens from the boroughs.  Earl Simon was one of those
men that come to the front in violent times, and he added real
nobility of character to strength of will and persistence.  He became
the hero of the people, who went near to canonizing him after his
death.  But the monarchy was too strong for him and his really
advanced projects, which by no means squared with the hopes of the
Baronage in general:  and when Prince Edward, afterwards Edward I.,
grown to his full mental stature, came to the help of the Crown with
his unscrupulous business ability, the struggle was soon over; and
with Evesham field the monarchy began to take a new stride, and the
longest yet taken, towards bureaucracy.

Edward I. is remembered by us chiefly for the struggle he carried on
with the Scotch Baronage for the feudal suzerainty of that kingdom,
and the centuries of animosity between the two countries which that
struggle drew on.  But he has other claims to our attention besides
this.

At first, and remembering the ruthlessness of many of his acts,
especially in the Scotch war, one is apt to look upon him as a
somewhat pedantic tyrant and a good soldier, with something like a
dash of hypocrisy beyond his time added.  But, like the Angevine
kings I was speaking of just now, he was a completely characteristic
product of his time.  He was not a hypocrite probably, after all, in
spite of his tears shed after he had irretrievably lost a game, or
after he had won one by stern cruelty.  There was a dash of real
romance in him, which mingled curiously with his lawyer-like
qualities.  He was, perhaps, the man of all men who represented most
completely the finished feudal system, and who took it most to heart.
His law, his romance, and his religion, his self-command, and his
terrible fury were all a part of this innate feudalism, and exercised
within its limits; and we must suppose that he thoroughly felt his
responsibility as the chief of his feudatories, while at the same
time he had no idea of his having any responsibilities towards the
lower part of his subjects.  Such a man was specially suited to
carrying on the tendency to bureaucratic centralization, which
culminated in the Tudor monarchy.  He had his struggle with the
Baronage, but hard as it was, he was sure not to carry it beyond the
due limits of feudalism; to that he was always loyal.  He had slain
Earl Simon before he was king, while he was but his father's general;
but Earl Simon's work did not die with him, and henceforward, while
the Middle Ages and their feudal hierarchy lasted, it was impossible
for either king or barons to do anything which would seriously injure
each other's position; the struggle ended in his reign in a balance
of power in England which, on the one hand, prevented any great
feudatory becoming a rival of the king, as happened in several
instances in France, and on the other hand prevented the king lapsing
into a mere despotic monarch.

I have said that bureaucracy took a great stride in Edward's reign,
but it reached its limits under feudalism as far as the nobles were
concerned.  Peace and order was established between the different
powers of the governing classes; henceforward, the struggle is
between them and the governed; that struggle was now to become
obvious; the lower tribe was rising in importance; it was becoming
richer for fleecing, but also it was beginning to have some power;
this led the king first, and afterwards the barons, to attack it
definitely; it was rich enough to pay for the trouble of being
robbed, and not yet strong enough to defend itself with open success,
although the slower and less showy success of growth did not fail it.
The instrument of attack in the hands of the barons was the ordinary
feudal privilege, the logical carrying out of serfdom; but this
attack took place two reigns later.  We shall come to that further
on.  The attack on the lower tribe which was now growing into
importance was in this reign made by the king; and his instrument
was--Parliament.

I have told you that Simon de Montfort made some attempt to get the
burgesses to sit in his Parliament, but it was left to Edward I. to
lay the foundations firmly of parliamentary representation, which he
used for the purpose of augmenting the power of the Crown and
crushing the rising liberty of the towns, though of course his direct
aim was simply at--money.

The Great Council of the Realm was purely feudal; it was composed of
the feudatories of the king, theoretically of all of them,
practically of the great ones only.  It was, in fact, the council of
the conquering tribe with their chief at its head; the matters of the
due feudal tribute, aids, reliefs, fines, scutage, and the like--in
short, the king's revenue due from his men--were settled in this
council at once and in the lump.  But the inferior tribe, though not
represented there, existed, and, as aforesaid, was growing rich, and
the king had to get their money out of their purses directly; which,
as they were not represented at the council, he had to do by means of
his officers (the sheriffs) dealing with them one after another,
which was a troublesome job; for the men were stiff-necked and quite
disinclined to part with their money; and the robbery having to be
done on the spot, so to say, encountered all sorts of opposition:
and, in fact, it was the money needs both of baron, bishop, and king
which had been the chief instrument in furthering the progress of the
towns.  The towns would be pressed by their lords, king, or baron, or
bishop, as it might be, and they would see their advantage and strike
a bargain.  For you are not to imagine that because there was a deal
of violence going on in those times there was no respect for law; on
the contrary, there was a quite exaggerated respect for it if it came
within the four corners of the feudal feeling, and the result of this
feeling of respect was the constant struggle for STATUS on the part
of the townships and other associations throughout the Middle Ages.

Well, the burghers would say, "'Tis hard to pay this money, but we
will put ourselves out to pay it if you will do something for us in
return; let, for example, our men be tried in our own court, and the
verdict be of one of compurgation instead of wager of battle," and so
forth, and so forth.

All this sort of detailed bargaining was, in fact, a safeguard for
the local liberties, so far as they went, of the towns and shires,
and did not suit the king's views of law and order at all; and so
began the custom of the sheriff (the king's officer, who had taken
the place of the earl of the Anglo-Saxon period) summoning the
burgesses to the council, which burgesses you must understand were
not elected at the folkmotes of the town, or hundred, but in a sort
of hole-and-corner way by a few of the bigger men of the place.  What
the king practically said was this:  "I want your money, and I cannot
be for ever wrangling with you stubborn churles at home there, and
listening to all your stories of how poor you are, and what you want;
no, I want you to be REPRESENTED.  Send me up from each one of your
communes a man or two whom I can bully or cajole or bribe to sign
away your substance for you."

Under these circumstances it is no wonder that the towns were not
very eager in the cause of REPRESENTATION.  It was no easy job to get
them to come up to London merely to consult as to the kind of sauce
with which they were to be eaten.  However, they did come in some
numbers, and by the year 1295 something like a shadow of our present
Parliament was on foot.  Nor need there be much more said about this
institution; as time went on its functions got gradually extended by
the petition for the redress of grievances accompanying the granting
of money, but it was generally to be reckoned on as subservient to
the will of the king, who down to the later Tudor period played some
very queer tunes on this constitutional instrument.

Edward I. gave place to his son, who again was of the type of king
who had hitherto given the opportunity to the barons for their turn
of advancement in the constitutional struggle; and in earlier times
no doubt they would have taken full advantage of the circumstances;
as it was they had little to gain.  The king did his best to throw
off the restraint of the feudal constitution, and to govern simply as
an absolute monarch.  After a time of apparent success he failed, of
course, and only succeeded in confirming the legal rights of
feudalism by bringing about his own formal deposition at the hands of
the Baronage, as a chief who, having broken the compact with his
feudatories, had necessarily forfeited his right.  If we compare his
case with that of Charles I. we shall find this difference in it,
besides the obvious one that Edward was held responsible to his
feudatories and Charles towards the upper middle classes, the
squirearchy, as represented by Parliament; that Charles was condemned
by a law created for the purpose, so to say, and evolved from the
principle of the representation of the propertied classes, while
Edward's deposition was the real logical outcome of the confirmed
feudal system, and was practically legal and regular.

The successor of the deposed king, the third Edward, ushers in the
complete and central period of the Middle Ages in England.  The
feudal system is complete:  the life and spirit of the country has
developed into a condition if not quite independent, yet quite
forgetful, on the one hand of the ideas and customs of the Celtic and
Teutonic tribes, and on the other of the authority of the Roman
Empire.  The Middle Ages have grown into manhood; that manhood has an
art of its own, which, though developed step by step from that of Old
Rome and New Rome, and embracing the strange mysticism and dreamy
beauty of the East, has forgotten both its father and its mother, and
stands alone triumphant, the loveliest, brightest, and gayest of all
the creations of the human mind and hand.

It has a literature of its own too, somewhat akin to its art, yet
inferior to it, and lacking its unity, since there is a double stream
in it.  On the one hand is the court poet, the gentleman, Chaucer,
with his Italianizing metres, and his formal recognition of the
classical stories; on which, indeed, he builds a superstructure of
the quaintest and most unadulterated mediaevalism, as gay and bright
as the architecture which his eyes beheld and his pen pictured for
us, so clear, defined, and elegant it is; a sunny world even amidst
its violence and passing troubles, like those of a happy child, the
worst of them an amusement rather than a grief to the onlookers; a
world that scarcely needed hope in its eager life of adventure and
love, amidst the sunlit blossoming meadows, and green woods, and
white begilded manor-houses.  A kindly and human muse is Chaucer's,
nevertheless, interested in and amused by all life, but of her very
nature devoid of strong aspirations for the future; and that all the
more, since, though the strong devotion and fierce piety of the ruder
Middle Ages had by this time waned, and the Church was more often
lightly mocked at than either feared or loved, still the HABIT of
looking on this life as part of another yet remained:  the world is
fair and full of adventure; kind men and true and noble are in it to
make one happy; fools also to laugh at, and rascals to be resisted,
yet not wholly condemned; and when this world is over we shall still
go on living in another which is a part of this.  Look at all the
picture, note all and live in all, and be as merry as you may, never
forgetting that you are alive and that it is good to live.

That is the spirit of Chaucer's poetry; but alongside of it existed
yet the ballad poetry of the people, wholly untouched by courtly
elegance and classical pedantry; rude in art but never coarse, true
to the backbone; instinct with indignation against wrong, and thereby
expressing the hope that was in it; a protest of the poor against the
rich, especially in those songs of the Foresters, which have been
called the mediaeval epic of revolt; no more gloomy than the
gentleman's poetry, yet cheerful from courage, and not content.  Half
a dozen stanzas of it are worth a cartload of the whining
introspective lyrics of to-day; and he who, when he has mastered the
slight differences of language from our own daily speech, is not
moved by it, does not understand what true poetry means nor what its
aim is.

There is a third element in the literature of this time which you may
call Lollard poetry, the great example of which is William Langland's
"Piers Plowman."  It is no bad corrective to Chaucer, and in FORM at
least belongs wholly to the popular side; but it seems to me to show
symptoms of the spirit of the rising middle class, and casts before
it the shadow of the new master that was coming forward for the
workman's oppression.  But I must leave what more I have to say on
this subject of the art and literature of the fourteenth century for
another occasion.  In what I have just said, I only wanted to point
out to you that the Middle Ages had by this time come to the fullest
growth; and that they could express in a form which was all their
own, the ideas and life of the time.

That time was in a sense brilliant and progressive, and the life of
the worker in it was better than it ever had been, and might compare
with advantage with what it became in after periods and with what it
is now; and indeed, looking back upon it, there are some minds and
some moods that cannot help regretting it, and are not particularly
scared by the idea of its violence and its lack of accurate knowledge
of scientific detail.

However, one thing is clear to us now, the kind of thing which never
is clear to most people living in such periods--namely, that whatever
it was, it could not last, but must change into something else.

The complete feudalism of the fourteenth century fell, as systems
always fall, by its own corruption, and by development of the innate
seeds of change, some of which indeed had lain asleep during
centuries, to wake up into activity long after the events which had
created them were forgotten.

The feudal system was naturally one of open war; and the alliances,
marriages, and other dealings, family with family, made by the king
and potentates, were always leading them into war by giving them
legal claims, or at least claims that could be legally pleaded, to
the domains of other lords, who took advantage of their being on the
spot, of their strength in men or money, or their popularity with the
Baronage, to give immediate effect to THEIR claims.  Such a war was
that by which Edward I. drew on England the enmity of the Scotch; and
such again was the great war which Edward III. entered into with
France.  You must not suppose that there was anything in this war of
a national, far less of a race, character.  The last series of wars
before this time I am now speaking of, in which race feelings counted
for much, was the Crusades.  This French war, I say, was neither
national, racial, or tribal; it was the private business of a lord of
the manor, claiming what he considered his legal rights of another
lord, who had, as he thought, usurped them; and this claim his loyal
feudatories were bound to take up for him; loyalty to a feudal
superior, not patriotism to a country, was the virtue which Edward
III.'s soldiers had to offer, if they had any call to be virtuous in
that respect.

This war once started was hard to drop, partly because of the success
that Edward had in it, falling as he did on France with the force of
a country so much more homogeneous than it; and no doubt it was a war
very disastrous to both countries, and so may be reckoned as amongst
the causes which broke up the feudal system.

But the real causes of that break-up lay much deeper than that.  The
system was not capable of expansion in production; it was, in fact,
as long as its integrity remained untouched, an army fed by slaves,
who could not be properly and closely exploited; its free men proper
might do something else in their leisure, and so produce art and
literature, but their true business as members of a conquering tribe,
their concerted business, was to fight.  There was, indeed, a fringe
of people between the serf and the free noble who produced the
matters of handicraft which were needed for the latter, but
deliberately, and, as we should now think, wastefully; and as these
craftsmen and traders began to grow into importance and to push
themselves, as they could not help doing, into the feudal hierarchy,
as they acquired STATUS, so the sickness of the feudal system
increased on it, and the shadow of the coming commercialism fell upon
it.

That any set of people who could claim to be other than the property
of free men should not have definite rights differentiated sharply
from those of other groups, was an idea that did not occur to the
Middle Ages; therefore, as soon as men came into existence that were
not serfs and were not nobles, they had to struggle for status by
organizing themselves into associations that should come to be
acknowledged members of the great feudal hierarchy; for indefinite
and negative freedom was not allowed to any person in those days; if
you had not status you did not exist except as an outlaw.

This is, briefly speaking, the motive power of necessity that lay
behind the struggle of the town corporations and craft-gilds to be
free, a struggle which, though it was to result in the breaking up of
the mediaeval hierarchy, began by an appearance of strengthening it
by adding to its members, increasing its power of production, and so
making it more stable for the time being.

About this struggle, and the kind of life which accompanied it, I may
have to write another time, and so will not say more about it here.
Except this, that it was much furthered by the change that gradually
took place between the landlords and the class on whom all society
rested, the serfs.  These at first were men who had no more rights
than chattel slaves had, except that mostly, as part of the stock of
the manor, they could not be sold off it; they had to do all the work
of the manor, and to earn their own livelihood off it as they best
could.  But as the power of production increased, owing to better
methods of working, and as the country got to be more settled, their
task-work became easier of performance and their own land more
productive to them; and that tendency to the definition and
differentiation of rights, moreover, was at work for their benefit,
and the custom of the manor defined what their services were, and
they began to acquire rights.  From that time they ceased to be pure
serfs, and began to tend towards becoming tenants, at first paying
purely and simply SERVICE for their holdings, but gradually commuting
that service for fines and money payment--for rent, in short.

Towards the close of the fourteenth century, after the country had
been depopulated by the Black Death, and impoverished by the long
war, the feudal lords of these copyholders and tenants began to
regret the slackness with which their predecessors had exploited
their PROPERTY, the serfs, and to consider that under the new
commercial light which had begun to dawn upon them THEY could do it
much better if they only had their property a little more in hand;
but it was too late, for their property had acquired rights, and
therewithal had got strange visions into their heads of a time much
better than that in which they lived, when even those rights should
be supplanted by a condition of things in which the assertion of
rights for any one set of men should no longer be needed, since all
men should be free to enjoy the fruits of their own labour.

Of that came the great episode of the Peasants' War, led by men like
Wat Tyler, Jack Straw, and John Ball, who indeed, with those they
led, suffered for daring to be before their time, for the revolt was
put down with cruelty worthy of an Irish landlord or a sweating
capitalist of the present day; but, nevertheless, serfdom came to an
end in England, if not because of the revolt, yet because of the
events that made it, and thereby a death-wound was inflicted on the
feudal system.

From that time onward the country, passing through the various
troubles of a new French war of Henry V.'s time, and the War of the
Roses, did not heed these faction fights much.

The workmen grew in prosperity, but also they began to rise into a
new class, and a class beneath them of mere labourers who were not
serfs began to form, and to lay the foundations of capitalistic
production.

England got carried into the rising current of commercialism, and the
rich men and landlords to turn their attention to the production of
profit instead of the production of livelihood; the gild-less
journeyman and the landless labourer slowly came into existence; the
landlord got rid of his tenants all he could, turned tillage into
pasture, and sweated the pastures to death in his eagerness for wool,
which for him meant money and the breeding of money; till at last the
place of the serf, which had stood empty, as it were, during a
certain transition period, during which the non-capitalistic
production was expanding up to its utmost limit, was filled by the
proletarian working for the service of a master in a new fashion, a
fashion which exploited and (woe worth the while!) exploits him very
much more completely than the customs of the manor of the feudal
period.

The life of the worker and the production of goods in this transition
period, when Feudal society was sickening for its end, is a difficult
and wide subject that requires separate treatment; at present I will
leave the mediaeval workman at the full development of that period
which found him a serf bound to the manor, and which left him
generally a yeoman or an artisan sharing the collective STATUS of his
gild.

The workman of to-day, if he could realize the position of his
forerunner, has some reason to envy him:  the feudal serf worked
hard, and lived poorly, and produced a rough livelihood for his
master; whereas the modern workman, working harder still, and living
little if any better than the serf, produces for his master a state
of luxury of which the old lord of the manor never dreamed.  The
workman's powers of production are multiplied a thousandfold; his own
livelihood remains pretty much where it was.  The balance goes to his
master and the crowd of useless, draggled-tailed knaves and fools who
pander to his idiotic sham desires, and who, under the pretentious
title of the intellectual part of the middle classes, have in their
turn taken the place of the mediaeval jester.

Truly, if the Positivist motto, "Live for others," be taken in stark
literality, the modern workman should be a good and wise man, since
he has no chance of living for himself!

And yet, I wish he were wiser still; wise enough to make an end of
the preaching of "Live on others," which is the motto set forth by
commercialism to her favoured children.

Yet in one thing the modern proletarian has an advantage over the
mediaeval serf, and that advantage is a world in itself.  Many a
century lay between the serf and successful revolt, and though he
tried it many a time and never lost heart, yet the coming change
which his martyrdom helped on was not to be for him yet, but for the
new masters of his successors.  With us it is different.  A few years
of wearisome struggle against apathy and ignorance; a year or two of
growing hope--and then who knows?  Perhaps a few months, or perhaps a
few days of the open struggle against brute force, with the mask off
its face, and the sword in its hand, and then we are over the bar.

Who knows, I say?  Yet this we know, that ahead of us, with nothing
betwixt us except such incidents as are necessary to its development,
lies the inevitable social revolution, which will bring about the end
of mastery and the triumph of fellowship.



THE HOPES OF CIVILIZATION



Every age has had its hopes, hopes that look to something beyond the
life of the age itself, hopes that try to pierce into the future;
and, strange to say, I believe that those hopes have been stronger
not in the heyday of the epoch which has given them birth, but rather
in its decadence and times of corruption:  in sober truth it may well
be that these hopes are but a reflection in those that live happily
and comfortably of the vain longings of those others who suffer with
little power of expressing their sufferings in an audible voice:
when all goes well the happy world forgets these people and their
desires, sure as it is that their woes are not dangerous to them the
wealthy:  whereas when the woes and grief of the poor begin to rise
to a point beyond the endurance of men, fear conscious or unconscious
falls upon the rich, and they begin to look about them to see what
there may be among the elements of their society which may be used as
palliatives for the misery which, long existing and ever growing
greater among the slaves of that society, is now at last forcing
itself on the attention of the masters.  Times of change, disruption,
and revolution are naturally times of hope also, and not seldom the
hopes of something better to come are the first tokens that tell
people that revolution is at hand, though commonly such tokens are no
more believed than Cassandra's prophecies, or are even taken in a
contrary sense by those who have anything to lose; since they look
upon them as signs of the prosperity of the times, and the long
endurance of that state of things which is so kind to them.  Let us
then see what the hopes of civilization are like to-day:  for indeed
I purpose speaking of our own times chiefly, and will leave for the
present all mention of that older civilization which was destroyed by
the healthy barbarism out of which our present society has grown.

Yet a few words may be necessary concerning the birth of our present
epoch and the hopes it gave rise to, and what has become of them:
that will not take us very far back in history; as to my mind our
modern civilization begins with the stirring period about the time of
the Reformation in England, the time which in the then more important
countries of the Continent is known as the period of the Renaissance,
the so-called new-birth of art and learning.

And first remember that this period includes the death-throes of
feudalism, with all the good and evil which that system bore with it.
For centuries past its end was getting ready by the gradual weakening
of the bonds of the great hierarchy which held men together:  the
characteristics of those bonds were, theoretically at least, personal
rights and personal duties between superior and inferior all down the
scale; each man was born, so to say, subject to these conditions, and
the mere accidents of his life could not free him from them:
commerce, in our sense of the word, there was none; capitalistic
manufacture, capitalistic exchange was unknown:  to buy goods cheap
that you might sell them dear was a legal offence (forestalling):  to
buy goods in the market in the morning and to sell them in the
afternoon in the same place was not thought a useful occupation and
was forbidden under the name of regrating; usury, instead of leading
as now directly to the highest offices of the State, was thought
wrong, and the profit of it mostly fell to the chosen people of God:
the robbery of the workers, thought necessary then as now to the very
existence of the State, was carried out quite crudely without any
concealment or excuse by arbitrary taxation or open violence:  on the
other hand, life was easy, and common necessaries plenteous; the
holidays of the Church were holidays in the modern sense of the word,
downright play-days, and there were ninety-six obligatory ones:  nor
were the people tame and sheep-like, but as rough-handed and bold a
set of good fellows as ever rubbed through life under the sun.

I remember three passages, from contemporary history or gossip, about
the life of those times which luck has left us, and which illustrate
curiously the change that has taken place in the habits of
Englishmen.  A lady writing from Norfolk 400 years ago to her husband
in London, amidst various commissions for tapestries, groceries, and
gowns, bids him also not to forget to bring back with him a good
supply of cross-bows and bolts, since the windows of their hall were
too low to be handy for long-bow shooting.  A German traveller,
writing quite at the end of the mediaeval period, speaks of the
English as the laziest and proudest people and the best cooks in
Europe.  A Spanish ambassador about the same period says, "These
English live in houses built of sticks and mud, {5} but therein they
fare as plenteously as lords."

Indeed, I confess that it is with a strange emotion that I recall
these times and try to realize the life of our forefathers, men who
were named like ourselves, spoke nearly the same tongue, lived on the
same spots of earth, and therewithal were as different from us in
manners, habits, ways of life and thought, as though they lived in
another planet.  The very face of the country has changed; not merely
I mean in London and the great manufacturing centres, but through the
country generally; there is no piece of English ground, except such
places as Salisbury Plain, but bears witness to the amazing change
which 400 years has brought upon us.

Not seldom I please myself with trying to realize the face of
mediaeval England; the many chases and great woods, the stretches of
common tillage and common pasture quite unenclosed; the rough
husbandry of the tilled parts, the unimproved breeds of cattle,
sheep, and swine; especially the latter, so lank and long and lathy,
looking so strange to us; the strings of packhorses along the bridle-
roads, the scantiness of the wheel-roads, scarce any except those
left by the Romans, and those made from monastery to monastery:  the
scarcity of bridges, and people using ferries instead, or fords where
they could; the little towns, well bechurched, often walled; the
villages just where they are now (except for those that have nothing
but the church left to tell of them), but better and more populous;
their churches, some big and handsome, some small and curious, but
all crowded with altars and furniture, and gay with pictures and
ornament; the many religious houses, with their glorious
architecture; the beautiful manor-houses, some of them castles once,
and survivals from an earlier period; some new and elegant; some out
of all proportion small for the importance of their lords.  How
strange it would be to us if we could be landed in fourteenth century
England; unless we saw the crest of some familiar hill, like that
which yet bears upon it a symbol of an English tribe, and from which,
looking down on the plain where Alfred was born, I once had many such
ponderings, we should not know into what country of the world we were
come:  the name is left, scarce a thing else.

And when I think of this it quickens my hope of what may be:  even so
it will be with us in time to come; all will have changed, and
another people will be dwelling here in England, who, although they
may be of our blood and bear our name, will wonder how we lived in
the nineteenth century.

Well, under all that rigidly ordered caste society of the fourteenth
century, with its rough plenty, its sauntering life, its cool
acceptance of rudeness and violence, there was going on a keen
struggle of classes which carried with it the hope of progress of
those days:  the serfs gradually getting freed, and becoming some of
them the town population, the first journeymen, or "free-labourers,"
so called, some of them the copyholders of agricultural land:  the
corporations of the towns gathered power, the craft-gilds grew into
perfection and corruption, the power of the Crown increased, attended
with nascent bureaucracy; in short, the middle class was forming
underneath the outward show of feudalism still intact:  and all was
getting ready for the beginning of the great commercial epoch in
whose LATTER days I would fain hope we are living.  That epoch began
with the portentous change of agriculture which meant cultivating for
profit instead of for livelihood, and which carried with it the
expropriation of the PEOPLE from the land, the extinction of the
yeoman, and the rise of the capitalist farmer; and the growth of the
town population, which, swelled by the drift of the landless
vagabonds and masterless men, grew into a definite proletariat or
class of free-workmen; and their existence made that of the embryo
capitalist-manufacturer also possible; and the reign of commercial
contract and cash payment began to take the place of the old feudal
hierarchy, with its many-linked chain of personal responsibilities.
The latter half of the seventeenth century, the reign of Charles II.,
saw the last blow struck at this feudal system, when the landowners'
military service was abolished, and they became simple owners of
property that had no duties attached to it save the payment of a
land-tax.

The hopes of the early part of the commercial period may be read in
almost every book of the time, expressed in various degrees of dull
or amusing pedantry, and show a naif arrogance and contempt of the
times just past through which nothing but the utmost simplicity of
ignorance could have attained to.  But the times were stirring, and
gave birth to the most powerful individualities in many branches of
literature, and More and Campanella, at least from the midst of the
exuberant triumph of young commercialism, gave to the world prophetic
hopes of times yet to come when that commercialism itself should have
given place to the society which we hope will be the next transform
of civilization into something else; into a new social life.

This period of early and exuberant hopes passed into the next stage
of sober realization of many of them, for commerce grew and grew, and
moulded all society to its needs:  the workman of the sixteenth
century worked still as an individual with little co-operation, and
scarce any division of labour:  by the end of the seventeenth he had
become only a part of a group which by that time was in the
handicrafts the real unit of production; division of labour even at
that period had quite destroyed his individuality, and the worker was
but part of a machine:  all through the eighteenth century this
system went on progressing towards perfection, till to most men of
that period, to most of those who were in any way capable of
expressing their thoughts, civilization had already reached a high
stage of perfection, and was certain to go on from better to better.

These hopes were not on the surface of a very revolutionary kind, but
nevertheless the class struggle still went on, and quite openly too;
for the remains of feudality, aided by the mere mask and grimace of
the religion, which was once a real part of the feudal system,
hampered the progress of commerce sorely, and seemed a thousandfold
more powerful than it really was; because in spite of the class
struggle there was really a covert alliance between the powerful
middle classes who were the children of commerce and their old
masters the aristocracy; an unconscious understanding between them
rather, in the midst of their contest, that certain matters were to
be respected even by the advanced party:  the contest and civil war
between the king and the commons in England in the seventeenth
century illustrates this well:  the caution with which privilege was
attacked in the beginning of the struggle, the unwillingness of all
the leaders save a few enthusiasts to carry matters to their logical
consequences, even when the march of events had developed the
antagonism between aristocratic privilege and middle-class freedom of
contract (so called); finally, the crystallization of the new order
conquered by the sword of Naseby into a mongrel condition of things
between privilege and bourgeois freedom, the defeat and grief of the
purist Republicans, and the horror at and swift extinction of the
Levellers, the pioneers of Socialism in that day, all point to the
fact that the "party of progress," as we should call it now, was
determined after all that privilege should not be abolished further
than its own standpoint.

The seventeenth century ended in the great Whig revolution in
England, and, as I said, commerce throve and grew enormously, and the
power of the middle classes increased proportionately and all things
seemed going smoothly with them, till at last in France the
culminating corruption of a society, still nominally existing for the
benefit of the privileged aristocracy, forced their hand:  the old
order of things, backed as it was by the power of the executive, by
that semblance of overwhelming physical force which is the real and
only cement of a society founded on the slavery of the many--the
aristocratic power, seemed strong and almost inexpugnable:  and since
any stick will do to beat a dog with, the middle classes in France
were forced to take up the first stick that lay ready to hand if they
were not to give way to the aristocrats, which indeed the whole
evolution of history forbade them to do.  Therefore, as in England in
the seventeenth century, the middle classes allied themselves to
religious and republican, and even communistic enthusiasts, with the
intention, firm though unexpressed, to keep them down when they had
mounted to power by their means, so in France they had to ally
themselves with the proletariat; which, shamefully oppressed and
degraded as it had been, now for the first time in history began to
feel its power, the power of numbers:  by means of this help they
triumphed over aristocratic privilege, but, on the other hand,
although the proletariat was speedily reduced again to a position not
much better than that it had held before the revolution, the part it
played therein gave a new and terrible character to that revolution,
and from that time forward the class struggle entered on to a new
phase; the middle classes had gained a complete victory, which in
France carried with it all the outward signs of victory, though in
England they chose to consider a certain part of themselves an
aristocracy, who had indeed little signs of aristocracy about them
either for good or for evil, being in very few cases of long descent,
and being in their manners and ideas unmistakably bourgeois.

So was accomplished the second act of the great class struggle with
whose first act began the age of commerce; as to the hopes of this
period of the revolution we all know how extravagant they were; what
a complete regeneration of the world was expected to result from the
abolition of the grossest form of privilege; and I must say that,
before we mock at the extravagance of those hopes, we should try to
put ourselves in the place of those that held them, and try to
conceive how the privilege of the old noblesse must have galled the
respectable well-to-do people of that time.  Well, the reasonable
part of those hopes were realized by the revolution; in other words,
it accomplished what it really aimed at, the freeing of commerce from
the fetters of sham feudality; or, in other words, the destruction of
aristocratic privilege.  The more extravagant part of the hopes
expressed by the eighteenth century revolution were vague enough, and
tended in the direction of supposing that the working classes would
be benefited by what was to the interest of the middle class in some
way quite unexplained--by a kind of magic, one may say--which welfare
of the workers, as it was never directly aimed at, but only hoped for
by the way, so also did not come about by any such magical means, and
the triumphant middle classes began gradually to find themselves
looked upon no longer as rebellious servants, but as oppressive
masters.

The middle class had freed commerce from her fetters of privilege,
and had freed thought from her fetters of theology, at least
partially; but it had not freed, nor attempted to free, labour from
its fetters.  The leaders of the French Revolution, even amidst the
fears, suspicions and slaughter of the Terror, upheld the rights of
"property" so called, though a new pioneer or prophet appeared in
France, analogous in some respects to the Levellers of Cromwell's
time, but, as might be expected, far more advanced and reasonable
than they were.  Gracchus Babeuf and his fellows were treated as
criminals, and died or suffered the torture of prison for attempting
to put into practice those words which the Republic still carried on
its banners, and Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality were interpreted
in a middle-class, or if you please a Jesuitical, sense, as the
rewards of success for those who could struggle into an exclusive
class; and at last property had to be defended by a military
adventurer, and the Revolution seemed to have ended with Napoleonism.

Nevertheless, the Revolution was not dead, nor was it possible to say
thus far and no further to the rising tide.  Commerce, which had
created the propertyless proletariat throughout civilization had
still another part to play, which is not yet played out; she had and
has to teach the workers to know what they are; to educate them, to
consolidate them, and not only to give them aspirations for their
advancement as a class, but to make means for them to realize those
aspirations.  All this she did, nor loitered in her work either; from
the beginning of the nineteenth century the history of civilization
is really the history of the last of the class-struggles which was
inaugurated by the French Revolution; and England, who all through
the times of the Revolution and the Caesarism which followed it
appeared to be the steady foe of Revolution, was really as steadily
furthering it; her natural conditions, her store of coal and
minerals, her temperate climate, extensive sea-board and many
harbours, and lastly her position as the outpost of Europe looking
into America across the ocean, doomed her to be for a time at least
the mistress of the commerce of the civilized world, and its agent
with barbarous and semi-barbarous countries.  The necessities of this
destiny drove her into the implacable war with France, a war which,
nominally waged on behalf of monarchical principles, was really,
though doubtless unconsciously, carried on for the possession of the
foreign and colonial markets.  She came out victorious from that war,
and fully prepared to take advantage of the industrial revolution
which had been going on the while, and which I now ask you to note.

I have said that the eighteenth century perfected the system of
labour which took the place of the mediaeval system, under which a
workman individually carried his piece of work all through its
various stages from the first to the last.

This new system, the first change in industrial production since the
Middle Ages, is known as the system of division of labour, wherein,
as I said, the unit of labour is a group, not a man; the individual
workman in this system is kept life-long at the performance of some
task quite petty in itself, and which he soon masters, and having
mastered it has nothing more to do but to go on increasing his speed
of hand under the spur of competition with his fellows, until he has
become the perfect machine which it is his ultimate duty to become,
since without attaining to that end he must die or become a pauper.
You can well imagine how this glorious invention of division of
labour, this complete destruction of individuality in the workman,
and his apparent hopeless enslavement to his profit-grinding master,
stimulated the hopes of civilization; probably more hymns have been
sung in praise of division of labour, more sermons preached about it,
than have done homage to the precept, "do unto others as ye would
they should do unto you."

To drop all irony, surely this was one of those stages of
civilization at which one might well say that, if it was to stop
there, it was a pity that it had ever got so far.  I have had to
study books and methods of work of the eighteenth century a good
deal, French chiefly; and I must say that the impression made on me
by that study is that the eighteenth century artisan must have been a
terrible product of civilization, and quite in a condition to give
rise to HOPES--of the torch, the pike, and the guillotine.

However, civilization was not going to stop there; having turned the
man into a machine, the next stage for commerce to aim at was to
contrive machines which would widely dispense with human labour; nor
was this aim altogether disappointed.

Now, at first sight it would seem that having got the workman into
such a plight as he was, as the slave of division of labour, this new
invention of machines which should free him from a part of his labour
at least, could be nothing to him but an unmixed blessing.  Doubtless
it will prove to have been so in the end, when certain institutions
have been swept away which most people now look on as eternal; but a
longish time has passed during which the workman's hopes of
civilization have been disappointed, for those who invented the
machines, or rather who profited by their invention, did not aim at
the saving of labour in the sense of reducing the labour which each
man had to do, but, first taking it for granted that every workman
would have to work as long as he could stand up to it, aimed, under
those conditions of labour, at producing the utmost possible amount
of goods which they could sell at a profit.

Need I dwell on the fact that, under these circumstances, the
invention of the machines has benefited the workman but little even
to this day?

Nay, at first they made his position worse than it had been:  for,
being thrust on the world very suddenly, they distinctly brought
about an industrial revolution, changing everything suddenly and
completely; industrial productiveness was increased prodigiously, but
so far from the workers reaping the benefit of this, they were thrown
out of work in enormous numbers, while those who were still employed
were reduced from the position of skilled artisans to that of
unskilled labourers:  the aims of their masters being, as I said, to
make a profit, they did not trouble themselves about this as a class,
but took it for granted that it was something that couldn't be helped
and didn't hurt THEM; nor did they think of offering to the workers
that compensation for harassed interests which they have since made a
point of claiming so loudly for themselves.

This was the state of things which followed on the conclusion of
European peace, and even that peace itself rather made matters worse
than better, by the sudden cessation of all war industries, and the
throwing on to the market many thousands of soldiers and sailors:  in
short, at no period of English history was the condition of the
workers worse than in the early years of the nineteenth century.

There seem during this period to have been two currents of hope that
had reference to the working classes:  the first affected the
masters, the second the men.

In England, and, in what I am saying of this period, I am chiefly
thinking of England, the hopes of the richer classes ran high; and no
wonder; for England had by this time become the mistress of the
markets of the world, and also, as the people of that period were
never weary of boasting, the workshop of the world:  the increase in
the riches of the country was enormous, even at the early period I am
thinking of now--prior to '48, I mean--though it increased much more
speedily in times that we have all seen:  but part of the jubilant
hopes of this newly rich man concerned his servants, the instruments
of his fortune:  it was hoped that the population in general would
grow wiser, better educated, thriftier, more industrious, more
comfortable; for which hope there was surely some foundation, since
man's mastery over the forces of Nature was growing yearly towards
completion; but you see these benevolent gentlemen supposed that
these hopes would be realized perhaps by some unexplained magic as
aforesaid, or perhaps by the working-classes, AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE,
by the exercise of virtues supposed to be specially suited to their
condition, and called, by their masters, "thrift" and "industry."
For this latter supposition there was no foundation:  indeed, the
poor wretches who were thrown out of work by the triumphant march of
commerce had perforce worn thrift threadbare, and could hardly better
their exploits in THAT direction; while as to those who worked in the
factories, or who formed the fringe of labour elsewhere, industry was
no new gospel to them, since they already worked as long as they
could work without dying at the loom, the spindle, or the stithy.
They for their part had their hopes, vague enough as to their
ultimate aim, but expressed in the passing day by a very obvious
tendency to revolt:  this tendency took various forms, which I cannot
dwell on here, but settled down at last into Chartism:  about which I
must speak a few words:  but first I must mention, I can scarce do
more, the honoured name of Robert Owen, as representative of the
nobler hopes of his day, just as More was of his, and the lifter of
the torch of Socialism amidst the dark days of the confusion
consequent on the reckless greed of the early period of the great
factory industries.

That the conditions under which man lived could affect his life and
his deeds infinitely, that not selfish greed and ceaseless
contention, but brotherhood and co-operation were the bases of true
society, was the gospel which he preached and also practised with a
single-heartedness, devotion, and fervour of hope which have never
been surpassed:  he was the embodied hope of the days when the
advance of knowledge and the sufferings of the people thrust
revolutionary hope upon those thinkers who were not in some form or
other in the pay of the sordid masters of society.

As to the Chartist agitation, there is this to be said of it, that it
was thoroughly a working-class movement, and it was caused by the
simplest and most powerful of all causes--hunger.  It is noteworthy
that it was strongest, especially in its earlier days, in the
Northern and Midland manufacturing districts--that is, in the places
which felt the distress caused by the industrial revolution most
sorely and directly; it sprang up with particular vigour in the years
immediately following the great Reform Bill; and it has been remarked
that disappointment of the hopes which that measure had cherished had
something to do with its bitterness.  As it went on, obvious causes
for failure were developed in it; self-seeking leadership; futile
discussion of the means of making the change, before organization of
the party was perfected; blind fear of ultimate consequences on the
part of some, blind disregard to immediate consequences on the part
of others; these were the surface reasons for its failure:  but it
would have triumphed over all these and accomplished revolution in
England, if it had not been for causes deeper and more vital than
these.  Chartism differed from mere Radicalism in being a class
movement; but its aim was after all political rather than social.
The Socialism of Robert Owen fell short of its object because it did
not understand that, as long as there is a privileged class in
possession of the executive power, they will take good care that
their economical position, which enables them to live on the unpaid
labour of the people, is not tampered with:  the hopes of the
Chartists were disappointed because they did not understand that true
political freedom is impossible to people who are economically
enslaved:  there is no first and second in these matters, the two
must go hand in hand together:  we cannot live as we will, and as we
should, as long as we allow people to GOVERN us whose interest it is
that we should live as THEY will, and by no means as we should;
neither is it any use claiming the right to manage our own business
unless we are prepared to have some business of our own:  these two
aims united mean the furthering of the class struggle till all
classes are abolished--the divorce of one from the other is fatal to
any hope of social advancement.

Chartism therefore, though a genuine popular movement, was incomplete
in its aims and knowledge; the time was not yet come and it could not
triumph openly; but it would be a mistake to say that it failed
utterly:  at least it kept alive the holy flame of discontent; it
made it possible for us to attain to the political goal of democracy,
and thereby to advance the cause of the people by the gain of a stage
from whence could be seen the fresh gain to be aimed at.

I have said that the time for revolution had not then come:  the
great wave of commercial success went on swelling, and though the
capitalists would if they had dared have engrossed the whole of the
advantages thereby gained at the expense of their wage slaves, the
Chartist revolt warned them that it was not safe to attempt it.  They
were FORCED to try to allay discontent by palliative measures.  They
had to allow Factory Acts to be passed regulating the hours and
conditions of labour of women and children, and consequently of men
also in some of the more important and consolidated industries; they
were FORCED to repeal the ferocious laws against combination among
the workmen; so that the Trades Unions won for themselves a legal
position and became a power in the labour question, and were able by
means of strikes and threats of strikes to regulate the wages granted
to the workers, and to raise the standard of livelihood for a certain
part of the skilled workmen and the labourers associated with them:
though the main part of the unskilled, including the agricultural
workmen, were no better off than before.

Thus was damped down the flame of a discontent vague in its aims, and
passionately crying out for what, if granted, it could not have used:
twenty years ago any one hinting at the possibility of serious class
discontent in this country would have been looked upon as a madman;
in fact, the well-to-do and cultivated were quite unconscious (as
many still are) that there was any class distinction in this country
other than what was made by the rags and cast clothes of feudalism,
which in a perfunctory manner they still attacked.

There was no sign of revolutionary feeling in England twenty years
ago:  the middle class were so rich that they had no need to hope for
anything--but a heaven which they did not believe in:  the well-to-do
working men did not hope, since they were not pinched and had no
means of learning their degraded position:  and lastly, the drudges
of the proletariat had such hope as charity, the hospital, the
workhouse, and kind death at last could offer them.

In this stock-jobbers' heaven let us leave our dear countrymen for a
little, while I say a few words about the affairs of the people on
the continent of Europe.  Things were not quite so smooth for the
fleecer there:  Socialist thinkers and writers had arisen about the
same time as Robert Owen; St. Simon, Proudhon, Fourier and his
followers kept up the traditions of hope in the midst of a bourgeois
world.  Amongst these Fourier is the one that calls for most
attention:  since his doctrine of the necessity and possibility of
making labour attractive is one which Socialism can by no means do
without.  France also kept up the revolutionary and insurrectionary
tradition, the result of something like hope still fermenting amongst
the proletariat:  she fell at last into the clutches of a second
Caesarism developed by the basest set of sharpers, swindlers, and
harlots that ever insulted a country, and of whom our own happy
bourgeois at home made heroes and heroines:  the hideous open
corruption of Parisian society, to which, I repeat, our respectable
classes accorded heartfelt sympathy, was finally swept away by the
horrors of a race war:  the defeats and disgraces of this war
developed, on the one hand, an increase in the wooden implacability
and baseness of the French bourgeois, but on the other made way for
revolutionary hope to spring again, from which resulted the attempt
to establish society on the basis of the freedom of labour, which we
call the Commune of Paris of 1871.  Whatever mistakes or imprudences
were made in this attempt, and all wars blossom thick with such
mistakes, I will leave the reactionary enemies of the people's cause
to put forward:  the immediate and obvious result was the slaughter
of thousands of brave and honest revolutionists at the hands of the
respectable classes, the loss in fact of an army for the popular
cause:  but we may be sure that the results of the Commune will not
stop there:  to all Socialists that heroic attempt will give hope and
ardour in the cause as long as it is to be won; we feel as though the
Paris workman had striven to bring the day-dawn for us, and had
lifted us the sun's rim over the horizon, never to set in utter
darkness again:  of such attempts one must say, that though those who
perished in them might have been put in a better place in the battle,
yet after all brave men never die for nothing, when they die for
principle.

Let us shift from France to Germany before we get back to England
again, and conclude with a few words about our hopes at the present
day.  To Germany we owe the school of economists, at whose head
stands the name of Karl Marx, who have made modern Socialism what it
is:  the earlier Socialist writers and preachers based their hopes on
man being taught to see the desirableness of co-operation taking the
place of competition, and adopting the change voluntarily and
consciously, and they trusted to schemes more or less artificial
being tried and accepted, although such schemes were necessarily
constructed out of the materials which capitalistic society offered:
but the new school, starting with an historical view of what had
been, and seeing that a law of evolution swayed all events in it, was
able to point out to us that the evolution was still going on, and
that, whether Socialism be desirable or not, it is at least
inevitable.  Here then was at last a hope of a different kind to any
that had gone before it; and the German and Austrian workmen were not
slow to learn the lesson founded on this theory; from being one of
the most backward countries in Europe in the movement, before
Lassalle started his German workman's party in 1863, Germany soon
became the leader in it:  Bismarck's repressive law has only acted on
opinion there, as the roller does to the growing grass--made it
firmer and stronger; and whatever vicissitudes may be the fate of the
party as a party, there can be no doubt that Socialistic opinion is
firmly established there, and that when the time is ripe for it that
opinion will express itself in action.

Now, in all I have been saying, I have been wanting you to trace the
fact that, ever since the establishment of commercialism on the ruins
of feudality, there has been growing a steady feeling on the part of
the workers that they are a class dealt with as a class, and in like
manner to deal with others; and that as this class feeling has grown,
so also has grown with it a consciousness of the antagonism between
their class and the class which employs it, as the phrase goes; that
is to say, which lives by means of its labour.

Now it is just this growing consciousness of the fact that as long as
there exists in society a propertied class living on the labour of a
propertyless one, there MUST be a struggle always going on between
those two classes--it is just the dawning knowledge of this fact
which should show us what civilization can hope for--namely,
transformation into true society, in which there will no longer be
classes with their necessary struggle for existence and superiority:
for the antagonism of classes which began in all simplicity between
the master and the chattel slave of ancient society, and was
continued between the feudal lord and the serf of mediaeval society,
has gradually become the contention between the capitalist developed
from the workman of the last-named period, and the wage-earner:  in
the former struggle the rise of the artisan and villenage tenant
created a new class, the middle class, while the place of the old
serf was filled by the propertyless labourer, with whom the middle
class, which has absorbed the aristocracy, is now face to face:  the
struggle between the classes therefore is once again a simple one, as
in the days of the classical peoples; but since there is no longer
any strong race left out of civilization, as in the time of the
disruption of Rome, the whole struggle in all its simplicity between
those who have and those who lack is WITHIN civilization.

Moreover, the capitalist or modern slave-owner has been forced by his
very success, as we have seen, to organize his slaves, the wage-
earners, into a co-operation for production so well arranged that it
requires little but his own elimination to make it a foundation for
communal life:  in the teeth also of the experience of past ages, he
has been compelled to allow a modicum of education to the
propertyless, and has not even been able to deprive them wholly of
political rights; his own advance in wealth and power has bred for
him the very enemy who is doomed to make an end of him.

But will there be any new class to take the place of the present
proletariat when that has triumphed, as it must do, over the present
privileged class?  We cannot foresee the future, but we may fairly
hope not:  at least we cannot see any signs of such a new class
forming.  It is impossible to see how destruction of privilege can
stop short of absolute equality of condition; pure Communism is the
logical deduction from the imperfect form of the new society, which
is generally differentiated from it as Socialism.

Meantime, it is this simplicity and directness of the growing contest
which above all things presents itself as a terror to the
conservative instinct of the present day.  Many among the middle
class who are sincerely grieved and shocked at the condition of the
proletariat which civilization has created, and even alarmed by the
frightful inequalities which it fosters, do nevertheless shudder back
from the idea of the class struggle, and strive to shut their eyes to
the fact that it is going on.  They try to think that peace is not
only possible, but natural, between the two classes, the very essence
of whose existence is that each can only thrive by what it manages to
force the other to yield to it.  They propose to themselves the
impossible problem of raising the inferior or exploited classes into
a position in which they will cease to struggle against the superior
classes, while the latter will not cease to exploit them.  This
absurd position drives them into the concoction of schemes for
bettering the condition of the working classes at their own expense,
some of them futile, some merely fantastic; or they may be divided
again into those which point out the advantages and pleasures of
involuntary asceticism, and reactionary plans for importing the
conditions of the production and life of the Middle Ages (wholly
misunderstood by them, by the way) into the present system of the
capitalist farmer, the great industries, and the universal world-
market.  Some see a solution of the social problem in sham co-
operation, which is merely an improved form of joint-stockery:
others preach thrift to (precarious) incomes of eighteen shillings a
week, and industry to men killing themselves by inches in working
overtime, or to men whom the labour-market has rejected as not
wanted:  others beg the proletarians not to breed so fast; an
injunction the compliance with which might be at first of advantage
to the proletarians themselves in their present condition, but would
certainly undo the capitalists, if it were carried to any lengths,
and would lead through ruin and misery to the violent outbreak of the
very revolution which these timid people are so anxious to forego.

Then there are others who, looking back on the past, and perceiving
that the workmen of the Middle Ages lived in more comfort and self-
respect than ours do, even though they were subjected to the class
rule of men who were looked on as another order of beings than they,
think that if those conditions of life could be reproduced under our
better political conditions the question would be solved for a time
at least.  Their schemes may be summed up in attempts, more or less
preposterously futile, to graft a class of independent peasants on
our system of wages and capital.  They do not understand that this
system of independent workmen, producing almost entirely for the
consumption of themselves and their neighbours, and exploited by the
upper classes by obvious taxes on their labour, which was not
otherwise organized or interfered with by the exploiters, was what in
past times took the place of our system, in which the workers sell
their labour in the competitive market to masters who have in their
hands the whole organization of the markets, and that these two
systems are mutually destructive.

Others again believe in the possibility of starting from our present
workhouse system, for the raising of the lowest part of the working
population into a better condition, but do not trouble themselves as
to the position of the workers who are fairly above the condition of
pauperism, or consider what part they will play in the contest for a
better livelihood.  And, lastly, quite a large number of well-
intentioned persons belonging to the richer classes believe, that in
a society that compels competition for livelihood, and holds out to
the workers as a stimulus to exertion the hope of their rising into a
monopolist class of non-producers, it is yet possible to "moralize"
capital (to use a slang phrase of the Positivists):  that is to say,
that a sentiment imported from a religion which looks upon another
world as the true sphere of action for mankind, will override the
necessities of our daily life in this world.  This curious hope is
founded on the feeling that a sentiment antagonistic to the full
development of commercialism exists and is gaining ground, and that
this sentiment is an independent growth of the ethics of the present
epoch.  As a matter of fact, admitting its existence, as I think we
must do, it is the birth of the sense of insecurity which is the
shadow cast before by the approaching dissolution of modern society
founded on wage-slavery.

The greater part of these schemes aim, though seldom with the
consciousness of their promoters, at the creation of a new middle-
class out of the wage-earning class, and at their expense, just as
the present middle-class was developed out of the serf-population of
the early Middle Ages.  It may be possible that such a FURTHER
development of the middle-class lies before us, but it will not be
brought about by any such artificial means as the abovementioned
schemes.  If it comes at all, it must be produced by events, which at
present we cannot foresee, acting on our commercial system, and
revivifying for a little time, maybe, that Capitalist Society which
now seems sickening towards its end.

For what is visible before us in these days is the competitive
commercial system killing itself by its own force:  profits
lessening, businesses growing bigger and bigger, the small employer
of labour thrust out of his function, and the aggregation of capital
increasing the numbers of the lower middle-class from above rather
than from below, by driving the smaller manufacturer into the
position of a mere servant to the bigger.  The productivity of labour
also increasing out of all proportion to the capacity of the
capitalists to manage the market or deal with the labour supply:
lack of employment therefore becoming chronic, and discontent
therewithal.

All this on the one hand.  On the other, the workmen claiming
everywhere political equality, which cannot long be denied; and
education spreading, so that what between the improvement in the
education of the working-class and the continued amazing fatuity of
that of the upper classes, there is a distinct tendency to
equalization here; and, as I have hinted above, all history shows us
what a danger to society may be a class at once educated and socially
degraded:  though, indeed, no history has yet shown us--what is
swiftly advancing upon us--a class which, though it shall have
attained knowledge, shall lack utterly the refinement and self-
respect which come from the union of knowledge with leisure and ease
of life.  The growth of such a class may well make the "cultured"
people of to-day tremble.

Whatever, therefore, of unforeseen and unconceived-of may lie in the
womb of the future, there is nothing visible before us but a decaying
system, with no outlook but ever-increasing entanglement and
blindness, and a new system, Socialism, the hope of which is ever
growing clearer in men's minds--a system which not only sees how
labour can be freed from its present fetters, and organized
unwastefully, so as to produce the greatest possible amount of wealth
for the community and for every member of it, but which bears with it
its own ethics and religion and aesthetics:  that is the hope and
promise of a new and higher life in all ways.  So that even if those
unforeseen economical events above spoken of were to happen, and put
off for a while the end of our Capitalist system, the latter would
drag itself along as an anomaly cursed by all, a mere clog on the
aspirations of humanity.

It is not likely that it will come to that:  in all probability the
logical outcome of the latter days of Capitalism will go step by step
with its actual history:  while all men, even its declared enemies,
will be working to bring Socialism about, the aims of those who have
learned to believe in the certainty and beneficence of its advent
will become clearer, their methods for realizing it clearer also, and
at last ready to hand.  Then will come that open acknowledgment for
the necessity of the change (an acknowledgment coming from the
intelligence of civilization) which is commonly called Revolution.
It is no use prophesying as to the events which will accompany that
revolution, but to a reasonable man it seems unlikely to the last
degree, or we will say impossible, that a moral sentiment will induce
the proprietary classes--those who live by OWNING the means of
production which the unprivileged classes must needs USE--to yield up
this privilege uncompelled; all one can hope is that they will see
the implicit threat of compulsion in the events of the day, and so
yield with a good grace to the terrible necessity of forming part of
a world in which all, including themselves, will work honestly and
live easily.



THE AIMS OF ART



In considering the Aims of Art, that is, why men toilsomely cherish
and practise Art, I find myself compelled to generalize from the only
specimen of humanity of which I know anything; to wit, myself.  Now,
when I think of what it is that I desire, I find that I can give it
no other name than happiness.  I want to be happy while I live; for
as for death, I find that, never having experienced it, I have no
conception of what it means, and so cannot even bring my mind to bear
upon it.  I know what it is to live; I cannot even guess what it is
to be dead.  Well, then, I want to be happy, and even sometimes, say
generally, to be merry; and I find it difficult to believe that that
is not the universal desire:  so that, whatever tends towards that
end I cherish with all my best endeavour.  Now, when I consider my
life further, I find out, or seem to, that it is under the influence
of two dominating moods, which for lack of better words I must call
the mood of energy and the mood of idleness:  these two moods are now
one, now the other, always crying out in me to be satisfied.  When
the mood of energy is upon me, I must be doing something, or I become
mopish and unhappy; when the mood of idleness is on me, I find it
hard indeed if I cannot rest and let my mind wander over the various
pictures, pleasant or terrible, which my own experience or my
communing with the thoughts of other men, dead or alive, have
fashioned in it; and if circumstances will not allow me to cultivate
this mood of idleness, I find I must at the best pass through a
period of pain till I can manage to stimulate my mood of energy to
take its place and make me happy again.  And if I have no means
wherewith to rouse up that mood of energy to do its duty in making me
happy, and I have to toil while the idle mood is upon me, then am I
unhappy indeed, and almost wish myself dead, though I do not know
what that means.

Furthermore, I find that while in the mood of idleness memory amuses
me, in the mood of energy hope cheers me; which hope is sometimes big
and serious, and sometimes trivial, but that without it there is no
happy energy.  Again, I find that while I can sometimes satisfy this
mood by merely exercising it in work that has no result beyond the
passing hour--in play, in short--yet that it presently wearies of
that and gets languid, the hope therein being too trivial, and
sometimes even scarcely real; and that on the whole, to satisfy my
master the mood, I must either be making something or making believe
to make it.

Well, I believe that all men's lives are compounded of these two
moods in various proportions, and that this explains why they have
always, with more or less of toil, cherished and practised art.

Why should they have touched it else, and so added to the labour
which they could not choose but do in order to live?  It must have
been done for their pleasure, since it has only been in very
elaborate civilizations that a man could get other men to keep him
alive merely to produce works of art, whereas all men that have left
any signs of their existence behind them have practised art.

I suppose, indeed, that nobody will be inclined to deny that the end
proposed by a work of art is always to please the person whose senses
are to be made conscious of it.  It was done FOR some one who was to
be made happier by it; his idle or restful mood was to be amused by
it, so that the vacancy which is the besetting evil of that mood
might give place to pleased contemplation, dreaming, or what you
will; and by this means he would not so soon be driven into his
workful or energetic mood:  he would have more enjoyment, and better.

The restraining of restlessness, therefore, is clearly one of the
essential aims of art, and few things could add to the pleasure of
life more than this.  There are, to my knowledge, gifted people now
alive who have no other vice than this of restlessness, and seemingly
no other curse in their lives to make them unhappy:  but that is
enough; it is "the little rift within the lute."  Restlessness makes
them hapless men and bad citizens.

But granting, as I suppose you all will do, that this is a most
important function for art to fulfil, the question next comes, at
what price do we obtain it?  I have admitted that the practice of art
has added to the labour of mankind, though I believe in the long run
it will not do so; but in adding to the labour of man has it added,
so far, to his pain?  There always have been people who would at once
say yes to that question; so that there have been and are two sets of
people who dislike and contemn art as an embarrassing folly.  Besides
the pious ascetics, who look upon it as a worldly entanglement which
prevents men from keeping their minds fixed on the chances of their
individual happiness or misery in the next world; who, in short, hate
art, because they think that it adds to man's earthly happiness--
besides these, there are also people who, looking on the struggle of
life from the most reasonable point that they know of, contemn the
arts because they think that they add to man's slavery by increasing
the sum of his painful labour:  if this were the case, it would
still, to my mind, be a question whether it might not be worth the
while to endure the extra pain of labour for the sake of the extra
pleasure added to rest; assuming, for the present, equality of
condition among men.  But it seems to me that it is not the case that
the practice of art adds to painful labour; nay more, I believe that,
if it did, art would never have arisen at all, would certainly not be
discernible, as it is, among peoples in whom only the germs of
civilization exist.  In other words, I believe that art cannot be the
result of external compulsion; the labour which goes to produce it is
voluntary, and partly undertaken for the sake of the labour itself,
partly for the sake of the hope of producing something which, when
done, shall give pleasure to the user of it.  Or, again, this extra
labour, when it is extra, is undertaken with the aim of satisfying
that mood of energy by employing it to produce something worth doing,
and which, therefore, will keep before the worker a lively hope while
he is working; and also by giving it work to do in which there is
absolute immediate pleasure.  Perhaps it is difficult to explain to
the non-artistic capacity that this definite sensuous pleasure is
always present in the handiwork of the deft workman when he is
working successfully, and that it increases in proportion to the
freedom and individuality of the work.  Also you must understand that
this production of art, and consequent pleasure in work, is not
confined to the production of matters which are works of art only,
like pictures, statues, and so forth, but has been and should be a
part of all labour in some form or other:  so only will the claims of
the mood of energy be satisfied.

Therefore the Aim of Art is to increase the happiness of men, by
giving them beauty and interest of incident to amuse their leisure,
and prevent them wearying even of rest, and by giving them hope and
bodily pleasure in their work; or, shortly, to make man's work happy
and his rest fruitful.  Consequently, genuine art is an unmixed
blessing to the race of man.

But as the word "genuine" is a large qualification, I must ask leave
to attempt to draw some practical conclusions from this assertion of
the Aims of Art, which will, I suppose, or indeed hope, lead us into
some controversy on the subject; because it is futile indeed to
expect any one to speak about art, except in the most superficial
way, without encountering those social problems which all serious men
are thinking of; since art is and must be, either in its abundance or
its barrenness, in its sincerity or its hollowness, the expression of
the society amongst which it exists.

First, then, it is clear to me that, at the present time, those who
look widest at things and deepest into them are quite dissatisfied
with the present state of the arts, as they are also with the present
condition of society.  This I say in the teeth of the supposed
revivification of art which has taken place of late years:  in fact,
that very excitement about the arts amongst a part of the cultivated
people of to-day does but show on how firm a basis the
dissatisfaction above mentioned rests.  Forty years ago there was
much less talk about art, much less practice of it, than there is
now; and that is specially true of the architectural arts, which I
shall mostly have to speak about now.  People have consciously
striven to raise the dead in art since that time, and with some
superficial success.  Nevertheless, in spite of this conscious
effort, I must tell you that England, to a person who can feel and
understand beauty, was a less grievous place to live in then than it
is now; and we who feel what art means know well, though we do not
often dare to say so, that forty years hence it will be a more
grievous place to us than it is now if we still follow up the road we
are on.  Less than forty years ago--about thirty--I first saw the
city of Rouen, then still in its outward aspect a piece of the Middle
Ages:  no words can tell you how its mingled beauty, history, and
romance took hold on me; I can only say that, looking back on my past
life, I find it was the greatest pleasure I have ever had:  and now
it is a pleasure which no one can ever have again:  it is lost to the
world for ever.  At that time I was an undergraduate of Oxford.
Though not so astounding, so romantic, or at first sight so mediaeval
as the Norman city, Oxford in those days still kept a great deal of
its earlier loveliness:  and the memory of its grey streets as they
then were has been an abiding influence and pleasure in my life, and
would be greater still if I could only forget what they are now--a
matter of far more importance than the so-called learning of the
place could have been to me in any case, but which, as it was, no one
tried to teach me, and I did not try to learn.  Since then the
guardians of this beauty and romance so fertile of education, though
professedly engaged in "the higher education" (as the futile system
of compromises which they follow is nick-named), have ignored it
utterly, have made its preservation give way to the pressure of
commercial exigencies, and are determined apparently to destroy it
altogether.  There is another pleasure for the world gone down the
wind; here, again, the beauty and romance have been uselessly,
causelessly, most foolishly thrown away.

These two cases are given simply because they have been fixed in my
mind; they are but types of what is going on everywhere throughout
civilization:  the world is everywhere growing uglier and more
commonplace, in spite of the conscious and very strenuous efforts of
a small group of people towards the revival of art, which are so
obviously out of joint with the tendency of the age that, while the
uncultivated have not even heard of them, the mass of the cultivated
look upon them as a joke, and even that they are now beginning to get
tired of.

Now, if it be true, as I have asserted, that genuine art is an
unmixed blessing to the world, this is a serious matter; for at first
sight it seems to show that there will soon be no art at all in the
world, which will thus lose an unmixed blessing; it can ill afford to
do that, I think.

For art, if it has to die, has worn itself out, and its aim will be a
thing forgotten; and its aim was to make work happy and rest
fruitful.  Is all work to be unhappy, all rest unfruitful, then?
Indeed, if art is to perish, that will be the case, unless something
is to take its place--something at present unnamed, undreamed of.

I do not think that anything will take the place of art; not that I
doubt the ingenuity of man, which seems to be boundless in the
direction of making himself unhappy, but because I believe the
springs of art in the human mind to be deathless, and also because it
seems to me easy to see the causes of the present obliteration of the
arts.

For we civilized people have not given them up consciously, or of our
free will; we have been FORCED to give them up.  Perhaps I can
illustrate that by the detail of the application of machinery to the
production of things in which artistic form of some sort is possible.
Why does a reasonable man use a machine?  Surely to save his labour.
There are some things which a machine can do as well as a man's hand,
PLUS a tool, can do them.  He need not, for instance, grind his corn
in a hand-quern; a little trickle of water, a wheel, and a few simple
contrivances will do it all perfectly well, and leave him free to
smoke his pipe and think, or to carve the handle of his knife.  That,
so far, is unmixed gain in the use of a machine--always, mind you,
supposing equality of condition among men; no art is lost, leisure or
time for more pleasurable work is gained.  Perhaps a perfectly
reasonable and free man would stop there in his dealings with
machinery; but such reason and freedom are too much to expect, so let
us follow our machine-inventor a step farther.  He has to weave plain
cloth, and finds doing so dullish on the one hand, and on the other
that a power-loom will weave the cloth nearly as well as a hand-loom:
so, in order to gain more leisure or time for more pleasurable work,
he uses a power-loom, and foregoes the small advantage of the little
extra art in the cloth.  But so doing, as far as the art is
concerned, he has not got a pure gain; he has made a bargain between
art and labour, and got a makeshift as a consequence.  I do not say
that he may not be right in so doing, but that he has lost as well as
gained.  Now, this is as far as a man who values art and is
reasonable would go in the matter of machinery AS LONG AS HE WAS
FREE--that is, was not FORCED to work for another man's profit; so
long as he was living in a society THAT HAD ACCEPTED EQUALITY OF
CONDITION.  Carry the machine used for art a step farther, and he
becomes an unreasonable man, if he values art and is free.  To avoid
misunderstanding, I must say that I am thinking of the modern
machine, which is as it were alive, and to which the man is
auxiliary, and not of the old machine, the improved tool, which is
auxiliary to the man, and only works as long as his hand is thinking;
though I will remark, that even this elementary form of machine has
to be dropped when we come to the higher and more intricate forms of
art.  Well, as to the machine proper used for art, when it gets to
the stage above dealing with a necessary production that has
accidentally some beauty about it, a reasonable man with a feeling
for art will only use it when he is forced to.  If he thinks he would
like ornament, for instance, and knows that the machine cannot do it
properly, and does not care to spend the time to do it properly, why
should he do it at all?  He will not diminish his leisure for the
sake of making something he does not want unless some man or band of
men force him to it; so he will either go without the ornament, or
sacrifice some of his leisure to have it genuine.  That will be a
sign that he wants it very much, and that it will be worth his
trouble:  in which case, again, his labour on it will not be mere
trouble, but will interest and please him by satisfying the needs of
his mood of energy.

This, I say, is how a reasonable man would act if he were free from
man's compulsion; not being free, he acts very differently.  He has
long passed the stage at which machines are only used for doing work
repulsive to an average man, or for doing what could be as well done
by a machine as a man, and he instinctively expects a machine to be
invented whenever any product of industry becomes sought after.  He
is the slave to machinery; the new machine MUST be invented, and when
invented he MUST--I will not say use it, but be used by it, whether
he likes it or not.

But why is he the slave to machinery?  Because he is the slave to the
system for whose existence the invention of machinery was necessary.

And now I must drop, or rather have dropped, the assumption of the
equality of condition, and remind you that, though in a sense we are
all the slaves of machinery, yet that some men are so directly
without any metaphor at all, and that these are just those on whom
the great body of the arts depends--the workmen.  It is necessary for
the system which keeps them in their position as an inferior class
that they should either be themselves machines or be the servants to
machines, in no case having any interest in the work which they turn
out.  To their employers they are, so far as they are workmen, a part
of the machinery of the workshop or the factory; to themselves they
are proletarians, human beings working to live that they may live to
work:  their part of craftsmen, of makers of things by their own free
will, is played out.

At the risk of being accused of sentimentality, I will say that since
this is so, since the work which produces the things that should be
matters of art is but a burden and a slavery, I exult in this at
least, that it cannot produce art; that all it can do lies between
stark utilitarianism and idiotic sham.

Or indeed is that merely sentimental?  Rather, I think, we who have
learned to see the connection between industrial slavery and the
degradation of the arts have learned also to hope for a future for
those arts; since the day will certainly come when men will shake off
the yoke, and refuse to accept the mere artificial compulsion of the
gambling market to waste their lives in ceaseless and hopeless toil;
and when it does come, their instincts for beauty and imagination set
free along with them, will produce such art as they need; and who can
say that it will not as far surpass the art of past ages as that does
the poor relics of it left us by the age of commerce?

A word or two on an objection which has often been made to me when I
have been talking on this subject.  It may be said, and is often, You
regret the art of the Middle Ages (as indeed I do), but those who
produced it were not free; they were serfs, or gild-craftsmen
surrounded by brazen walls of trade restrictions; they had no
political rights, and were exploited by their masters, the noble
caste, most grievously.  Well, I quite admit that the oppression and
violence of the Middle Ages had its effect on the art of those days,
its shortcomings are traceable to them; they repressed art in certain
directions, I do not doubt that; and for that reason I say, that when
we shake off the present oppression as we shook off the old, we may
expect the art of the days of real freedom to rise above that of
those old violent days.  But I do say that it was possible then to
have social, organic, hopeful progressive art; whereas now such poor
scraps of it as are left are the result of individual and wasteful
struggle, are retrospective and pessimistic.  And this hopeful art
was possible amidst all the oppression of those days, because the
instruments of that oppression were grossly obvious, and were
external to the work of the craftsman.  They were laws and customs
obviously intended to rob him, and open violence of the highway-
robbery kind.  In short, industrial production was not the instrument
used for robbing the "lower classes;" it is now the main instrument
used in that honourable profession.  The mediaeval craftsman was free
in his work, therefore he made it as amusing to himself as he could;
and it was his pleasure and not his pain that made all things
beautiful that were made, and lavished treasures of human hope and
thought on everything that man made, from a cathedral to a porridge-
pot.  Come, let us put it in the way least respectful to the
mediaeval craftsman, most polite to the modern "hand:" the poor devil
of the fourteenth century, his work was of so little value that he
was allowed to waste it by the hour in pleasing himself--and others;
but our highly-strung mechanic, his minutes are too rich with the
burden of perpetual profit for him to be allowed to waste one of them
on art; the present system will not allow him--cannot allow him--to
produce works of art.


So that there has arisen this strange phenomenon, that there is now a
class of ladies and gentlemen, very refined indeed, though not
perhaps as well informed as is generally supposed, and of this
refined class there are many who do really love beauty and incident--
i.e., art, and would make sacrifices to get it; and these are led by
artists of great manual skill and high intellect, forming altogether
a large body of demand for the article.  And yet the supply does not
come.  Yes, and moreover, this great body of enthusiastic demanders
are no mere poor and helpless people, ignorant fisher-peasants, half-
mad monks, scatter-brained sansculottes--none of those, in short, the
expression of whose needs has shaken the world so often before, and
will do yet again.  No, they are of the ruling classes, the masters
of men, who can live without labour, and have abundant leisure to
scheme out the fulfilment of their desires; and yet I say they cannot
have the art which they so much long for, though they hunt it about
the world so hard, sentimentalizing the sordid lives of the miserable
peasants of Italy and the starving proletarians of her towns, now
that all the picturesqueness has departed from the poor devils of our
own country-side, and of our own slums.  Indeed, there is little of
reality left them anywhere, and that little is fast fading away
before the needs of the manufacturer and his ragged regiment of
workers, and before the enthusiasm of the archaeological restorer of
the dead past.  Soon there will be nothing left except the lying
dreams of history, the miserable wreckage of our museums and picture-
galleries, and the carefully guarded interiors of our aesthetic
drawing-rooms, unreal and foolish, fitting witnesses of the life of
corruption that goes on there, so pinched and meagre and cowardly,
with its concealment and ignoring, rather than restraint of, natural
longings; which does not forbid the greedy indulgence in them if it
can but be decently hidden.

The art then is gone, and can no more be "restored" on its old lines
than a mediaeval building can be.  The rich and refined cannot have
it though they would, and though we will believe many of them would.
And why?  Because those who could give it to the rich are not allowed
by the rich to do so.  In one word, slavery lies between us and art.

I have said as much as that the aim of art was to destroy the curse
of labour by making work the pleasurable satisfaction of our impulse
towards energy, and giving to that energy hope of producing something
worth its exercise.

Now, therefore, I say, that since we cannot have art by striving
after its mere superficial manifestation, since we can have nothing
but its sham by so doing, there yet remains for us to see how it
would be if we let the shadow take care of itself and try, if we can,
to lay hold of the substance.  For my part I believe, that if we try
to realize the aims of art without much troubling ourselves what the
aspect of the art itself shall be, we shall find we shall have what
we want at last:  whether it is to be called art or not, it will at
least be LIFE; and, after all, that is what we want.  It may lead us
into new splendours and beauties of visible art; to architecture with
manifolded magnificence free from the curious incompleteness and
failings of that which the older times have produced--to painting,
uniting to the beauty which mediaeval art attained the realism which
modern art aims at; to sculpture, uniting the beauty of the Greek and
the expression of the Renaissance with some third quality yet
undiscovered, so as to give us the images of men and women splendidly
alive, yet not disqualified from making, as all true sculpture
should, architectural ornament.  All this it may do; or, on the other
hand, it may lead us into the desert, and art may seem to be dead
amidst us; or feebly and uncertainly to be struggling in a world
which has utterly forgotten its old glories.

For my part, with art as it now is, I cannot bring myself to think
that it much matters which of these dooms awaits it, so long as each
bears with it some hope of what is to come; since here, as in other
matters, there is no hope save in Revolution.  The old art is no
longer fertile, no longer yields us anything save elegantly poetical
regrets; being barren, it has but to die, and the matter of moment
now is, as to how it shall die, whether WITH hope or WITHOUT it.

What is it, for instance, that has destroyed the Rouen, the Oxford of
MY elegant poetic regret?  Has it perished for the benefit of the
people, either slowly yielding to the growth of intelligent change
and new happiness? or has it been, as it were, thunderstricken by the
tragedy which mostly accompanies some great new birth?  Not so.
Neither phalangstere nor dynamite has swept its beauty away, its
destroyers have not been either the philanthropist or the Socialist,
the co-operator or the anarchist.  It has been sold, and at a cheap
price indeed:  muddled away by the greed and incompetence of fools
who do not know what life and pleasure mean, who will neither take
them themselves nor let others have them.  That is why the death of
that beauty wounds us so:  no man of sense or feeling would dare to
regret such losses if they had been paid for by new life and
happiness for the people.  But there is the people still as it was
before, still facing for its part the monster who destroyed all that
beauty, and whose name is Commercial Profit.

I repeat, that every scrap of genuine art will fall by the same hands
if the matter only goes on long enough, although a sham art may be
left in its place, which may very well be carried on by dilettanti
fine gentlemen and ladies without any help from below; and, to speak
plainly, I fear that this gibbering ghost of the real thing would
satisfy a great many of those who now think themselves lovers of art;
though it is not difficult to see a long vista of its degradation
till it shall become at last a mere laughing-stock; that is to say,
if the thing were to go on:  I mean, if art were to be for ever the
amusement of those whom we now call ladies and gentlemen.

But for my part I do not think it will go on long enough to reach
such depths as that; and yet I should be hypocritical if I were to
say that I thought that the change in the basis of society, which
would enfranchise labour and make men practically equal in condition,
would lead us by a short road to the splendid new birth of art which
I have mentioned, though I feel quite certain that it would not leave
what we now call art untouched, since the aims of that revolution do
include the aims of art--viz., abolishing the curse of labour.

I suppose that this is what is likely to happen; that machinery will
go on developing, with the purpose of saving men labour, till the
mass of the people attain real leisure enough to be able to
appreciate the pleasure of life; till, in fact, they have attained
such mastery over Nature that they no longer fear starvation as a
penalty for not working more than enough.  When they get to that
point they will doubtless turn themselves and begin to find out what
it is that they really want to do.  They would soon find out that the
less work they did (the less work unaccompanied by art, I mean), the
more desirable a dwelling-place the earth would be; they would
accordingly do less and less work, till the mood of energy, of which
I began by speaking, urged them on afresh:  but by that time Nature,
relieved by the relaxation of man's work, would be recovering her
ancient beauty, and be teaching men the old story of art.  And as the
Artificial Famine, caused by men working for the profit of a master,
and which we now look upon as a matter of course, would have long
disappeared, they would be free to do as they chose, and they would
set aside their machines in all cases where the work seemed pleasant
or desirable for handiwork; till in all crafts where production of
beauty was required, the most direct communication between a man's
hand and his brain would be sought for.  And there would be many
occupations also, as the processes of agriculture, in which the
voluntary exercise of energy would be thought so delightful, that
people would not dream of handing over its pleasure to the jaws of a
machine.

In short, men will find out that the men of our days were wrong in
first multiplying their needs, and then trying, each man of them, to
evade all participation in the means and processes whereby those
needs are satisfied; that this kind of division of labour is really
only a new and wilful form of arrogant and slothful ignorance, far
more injurious to the happiness and contentment of life than the
ignorance of the processes of Nature, of what we sometimes call
SCIENCE, which men of the earlier days unwittingly lived in.

They will discover, or rediscover rather, that the true secret of
happiness lies in the taking a genuine interest in all the details of
daily life, in elevating them by art instead of handing the
performance of them over to unregarded drudges, and ignoring them;
and that in cases where it was impossible either so to elevate them
and make them interesting, or to lighten them by the use of
machinery, so as to make the labour of them trifling, that should be
taken as a token that the supposed advantages gained by them were not
worth the trouble and had better be given up.  All this to my mind
would be the outcome of men throwing off the burden of Artificial
Famine, supposing, as I cannot help supposing, that the impulses
which have from the first glimmerings of history urged men on to the
practice of Art were still at work in them.

Thus and thus only CAN come about the new birth of Art, and I think
it WILL come about thus.  You may say it is a long process, and so it
is; but I can conceive of a longer.  I have given you the Socialist
or Optimist view of the matter.  Now for the Pessimist view.

I can conceive that the revolt against Artificial Famine or
Capitalism, which is now on foot, may be vanquished.  The result will
be that the working class--the slaves of society--will become more
and more degraded; that they will not strive against overwhelming
force, but, stimulated by that love of life which Nature, always
anxious about the perpetuation of the race, has implanted in us, will
learn to bear everything--starvation, overwork, dirt, ignorance,
brutality.  All these things they will bear, as, alas! they bear them
too well even now; all this rather than risk sweet life and bitter
livelihood, and all sparks of hope and manliness will die out of
them.

Nor will their masters be much better off:  the earth's surface will
be hideous everywhere, save in the uninhabitable desert; Art will
utterly perish, as in the manual arts so in literature, which will
become, as it is indeed speedily becoming, a mere string of orderly
and calculated ineptitudes and passionless ingenuities; Science will
grow more and more one-sided, more incomplete, more wordy and
useless, till at last she will pile herself up into such a mass of
superstition, that beside it the theologies of old time will seem
mere reason and enlightenment.  All will get lower and lower, till
the heroic struggles of the past to realize hope from year to year,
from century to century, will be utterly forgotten, and man will be
an indescribable being--hopeless, desireless, lifeless.

And will there be deliverance from this even?  Maybe:  man may, after
some terrible cataclysm, learn to strive towards a healthy animalism,
may grow from a tolerable animal into a savage, from a savage into a
barbarian, and so on; and some thousands of years hence he may be
beginning once more those arts which we have now lost, and be carving
interlacements like the New Zealanders, or scratching forms of
animals on their cleaned blade-bones, like the pre-historic men of
the drift.

But in any case, according to the pessimist view, which looks upon
revolt against Artificial Famine as impossible to succeed, we shall
wearily trudge the circle again, until some accident, some unforeseen
consequence of arrangement, makes an end of us altogether.

That pessimism I do not believe in, nor, on the other hand, do I
suppose that it is altogether a matter of our wills as to whether we
shall further human progress or human degradation; yet, since there
are those who are impelled towards the Socialist or Optimistic side
of things, I must conclude that there is some hope of its prevailing,
that the strenuous efforts of many individuals imply a force which is
thrusting them on.  So that I believe that the "Aims of Art" will be
realized, though I know that they cannot be, so long as we groan
under the tyranny of Artificial Famine.  Once again I warn you
against supposing, you who may specially love art, that you will do
any good by attempting to revivify art by dealing with its dead
exterior.  I say it is the AIMS OF ART that you must seek rather than
the ART ITSELF; and in that search we may find ourselves in a world
blank and bare, as the result of our caring at least this much for
art, that we will not endure the shams of it.

Anyhow, I ask you to think with me that the worst which can happen to
us is to endure tamely the evils that we see; that no trouble or
turmoil is so bad as that; that the necessary destruction which
reconstruction bears with it must be taken calmly; that everywhere--
in State, in Church, in the household--we must be resolute to endure
no tyranny, accept no lie, quail before no fear, although they may
come before us disguised as piety, duty, or affection, as useful
opportunity and good-nature, as prudence or kindness.  The world's
roughness, falseness, and injustice will bring about their natural
consequences, and we and our lives are part of those consequences;
but since we inherit also the consequences of old resistance to those
curses, let us each look to it to have our fair share of that
inheritance also, which, if nothing else come of it, will at least
bring to us courage and hope; that is, eager life while we live,
which is above all things the Aim of Art.



USEFUL WORK VERSUS USELESS TOIL



The above title may strike some of my readers as strange.  It is
assumed by most people nowadays that all work is useful, and by most
well-to-to people that all work is desirable.  Most people, well-to-
do or not, believe that, even when a man is doing work which appears
to be useless, he is earning his livelihood by it--he is "employed,"
as the phrase goes; and most of those who are well-to-do cheer on the
happy worker with congratulations and praises, if he is only
"industrious" enough and deprives himself of all pleasure and
holidays in the sacred cause of labour.  In short, it has become an
article of the creed of modern morality that all labour is good in
itself--a convenient belief to those who live on the labour of
others.  But as to those on whom they live, I recommend them not to
take it on trust, but to look into the matter a little deeper.

Let us grant, first, that the race of man must either labour or
perish.  Nature does not give us our livelihood gratis; we must win
it by toil of some sort or degree.  Let us see, then, if she does not
give us some compensation for this compulsion to labour, since
certainly in other matters she takes care to make the acts necessary
to the continuance of life in the individual and the race not only
endurable, but even pleasurable.

You may be sure that she does so, that it is of the nature of man,
when he is not diseased, to take pleasure in his work under certain
conditions.  And, yet, we must say in the teeth of the hypocritical
praise of all labour, whatsoever it may be, of which I have made
mention, that there is some labour which is so far from being a
blessing that it is a curse; that it would be better for the
community and for the worker if the latter were to fold his hands and
refuse to work, and either die or let us pack him off to the
workhouse or prison--which you will.

Here, you see, are two kinds of work--one good, the other bad; one
not far removed from a blessing, a lightening of life; the other a
mere curse, a burden to life.

What is the difference between them, then?  This:  one has hope in
it, the other has not.  It is manly to do the one kind of work, and
manly also to refuse to do the other.

What is the nature of the hope which, when it is present in work,
makes it worth doing?

It is threefold, I think--hope of rest, hope of product, hope of
pleasure in the work itself; and hope of these also in some abundance
and of good quality; rest enough and good enough to be worth having;
product worth having by one who is neither a fool nor an ascetic;
pleasure enough for all for us to be conscious of it while we are at
work; not a mere habit, the loss of which we shall feel as a fidgety
man feels the loss of the bit of string he fidgets with.

I have put the hope of rest first because it is the simplest and most
natural part of our hope.  Whatever pleasure there is in some work,
there is certainly some pain in all work, the beast-like pain of
stirring up our slumbering energies to action, the beast-like dread
of change when things are pretty well with us; and the compensation
for this animal pain is animal rest.  We must feel while we are
working that the time will come when we shall not have to work.  Also
the rest, when it comes, must be long enough to allow us to enjoy it;
it must be longer than is merely necessary for us to recover the
strength we have expended in working, and it must be animal rest also
in this, that it must not be disturbed by anxiety, else we shall not
be able to enjoy it.  If we have this amount and kind of rest we
shall, so far, be no worse off than the beasts.

As to the hope of product, I have said that Nature compels us to work
for that.  It remains for US to look to it that we DO really produce
something, and not nothing, or at least nothing that we want or are
allowed to use.  If we look to this and use our wills we shall, so
far, be better than machines.

The hope of pleasure in the work itself:  how strange that hope must
seem to some of my readers--to most of them!  Yet I think that to all
living things there is a pleasure in the exercise of their energies,
and that even beasts rejoice in being lithe and swift and strong.
But a man at work, making something which he feels will exist because
he is working at it and wills it, is exercising the energies of his
mind and soul as well as of his body.  Memory and imagination help
him as he works.  Not only his own thoughts, but the thoughts of the
men of past ages guide his hands; and, as a part of the human race,
he creates.  If we work thus we shall be men, and our days will be
happy and eventful.

Thus worthy work carries with it the hope of pleasure in rest, the
hope of the pleasure in our using what it makes, and the hope of
pleasure in our daily creative skill.

All other work but this is worthless; it is slaves' work--mere
toiling to live, that we may live to toil.

Therefore, since we have, as it were, a pair of scales in which to
weigh the work now done in the world, let us use them.  Let us
estimate the worthiness of the work we do, after so many thousand
years of toil, so many promises of hope deferred, such boundless
exultation over the progress of civilization and the gain of liberty.

Now, the first thing as to the work done in civilization and the
easiest to notice is that it is portioned out very unequally amongst
the different classes of society.  First, there are people--not a
few--who do no work, and make no pretence of doing any.  Next, there
are people, and very many of them, who work fairly hard, though with
abundant easements and holidays, claimed and allowed; and lastly,
there are people who work so hard that they may be said to do nothing
else than work, and are accordingly called "the working classes," as
distinguished from the middle classes and the rich, or aristocracy,
whom I have mentioned above.

It is clear that this inequality presses heavily upon the "working"
class, and must visibly tend to destroy their hope of rest at least,
and so, in that particular, make them worse off than mere beasts of
the field; but that is not the sum and end of our folly of turning
useful work into useless toil, but only the beginning of it.

For first, as to the class of rich people doing no work, we all know
that they consume a great deal while they produce nothing.
Therefore, clearly, they have to be kept at the expense of those who
do work, just as paupers have, and are a mere burden on the
community.  In these days there are many who have learned to see
this, though they can see no further into the evils of our present
system, and have formed no idea of any scheme for getting rid of this
burden; though perhaps they have a vague hope that changes in the
system of voting for members of the House of Commons may, as if by
magic, tend in that direction.  With such hopes or superstitions we
need not trouble ourselves.  Moreover, this class, the aristocracy,
once thought most necessary to the State, is scant of numbers, and
has now no power of its own, but depends on the support of the class
next below it--the middle class.  In fact, it is really composed
either of the most successful men of that class, or of their
immediate descendants.

As to the middle class, including the trading, manufacturing, and
professional people of our society, they do, as a rule, seem to work
quite hard enough, and so at first sight might be thought to help the
community, and not burden it.  But by far the greater part of them,
though they work, do not produce, and even when they do produce, as
in the case of those engaged (wastefully indeed) in the distribution
of goods, or doctors, or (genuine) artists and literary men, they
consume out of all proportion to their due share.  The commercial and
manufacturing part of them, the most powerful part, spend their lives
and energies in fighting amongst themselves for their respective
shares of the wealth which they FORCE the genuine workers to provide
for them; the others are almost wholly the hangers-on of these; they
do not work for the public, but a privileged class:  they are the
parasites of property, sometimes, as in the case of lawyers,
undisguisedly so; sometimes, as the doctors and others above
mentioned, professing to be useful, but too often of no use save as
supporters of the system of folly, fraud, and tyranny of which they
form a part.  And all these we must remember have, as a rule, one aim
in view; not the production of utilities, but the gaining of a
position either for themselves or their children in which they will
not have to work at all.  It is their ambition and the end of their
whole lives to gain, if not for themselves yet at least for their
children, the proud position of being obvious burdens on the
community.  For their work itself in spite of the sham dignity with
which they surround it, they care nothing:  save a few enthusiasts,
men of science, art or letters, who, if they are not the salt of the
earth, are at least (and oh, the pity of it!) the salt of the
miserable system of which they are the slaves, which hinders and
thwarts them at every turn, and even sometimes corrupts them.

Here then is another class, this time very numerous and all-powerful,
which produces very little and consumes enormously, and is therefore
in the main supported, as paupers are, by the real producers.  The
class that remains to be considered produces all that is produced,
and supports both itself and the other classes, though it is placed
in a position of inferiority to them; real inferiority, mind you,
involving a degradation both of mind and body.  But it is a necessary
consequence of this tyranny and folly that again many of these
workers are not producers.  A vast number of them once more are
merely parasites of property, some of them openly so, as the soldiers
by land and sea who are kept on foot for the perpetuating of national
rivalries and enmities, and for the purposes of the national struggle
for the share of the product of unpaid labour.  But besides this
obvious burden on the producers and the scarcely less obvious one of
domestic servants, there is first the army of clerks, shop-
assistants, and so forth, who are engaged in the service of the
private war for wealth, which, as above said, is the real occupation
of the well-to-do middle class.  This is a larger body of workers
than might be supposed, for it includes amongst others all those
engaged in what I should call competitive salesmanship, or, to use a
less dignified word, the puffery of wares, which has now got to such
a pitch that there are many things which cost far more to sell than
they do to make.

Next there is the mass of people employed in making all those
articles of folly and luxury, the demand for which is the outcome of
the existence of the rich non-producing classes; things which people
leading a manly and uncorrupted life would not ask for or dream of.
These things, whoever may gainsay me, I will for ever refuse to call
wealth:  they are not wealth, but waste.  Wealth is what Nature gives
us and what a reasonable man can make out of the gifts of Nature for
his reasonable use.  The sunlight, the fresh air, the unspoiled face
of the earth, food, raiment and housing necessary and decent; the
storing up of knowledge of all kinds, and the power of disseminating
it; means of free communication between man and man; works of art,
the beauty which man creates when he is most a man, most aspiring and
thoughtful--all things which serve the pleasure of people, free,
manly and uncorrupted.  This is wealth.  Nor can I think of anything
worth having which does not come under one or other of these heads.
But think, I beseech you, of the product of England, the workshop of
the world, and will you not be bewildered, as I am, at the thought of
the mass of things which no sane man could desire, but which our
useless toil makes--and sells?

Now, further, there is even a sadder industry yet, which is forced on
many, very many, of our workers--the making of wares which are
necessary to them and their brethren, BECAUSE THEY ARE AN INFERIOR
CLASS.  For if many men live without producing, nay, must live lives
so empty and foolish that they FORCE a great part of the workers to
produce wares which no one needs, not even the rich, it follows that
most men must be poor; and, living as they do on wages from those
whom they support, cannot get for their use the GOODS which men
naturally desire, but must put up with miserable makeshifts for them,
with coarse food that does not nourish, with rotten raiment which
does not shelter, with wretched houses which may well make a town-
dweller in civilization look back with regret to the tent of the
nomad tribe, or the cave of the pre-historic savage.  Nay, the
workers must even lend a hand to the great industrial invention of
the age--adulteration, and by its help produce for their own use
shams and mockeries of the luxury of the rich; for the wage-earners
must always live as the wage-payers bid them, and their very habits
of life are FORCED on them by their masters.

But it is waste of time to try to express in words due contempt of
the productions of the much-praised cheapness of our epoch.  It must
be enough to say that this cheapness is necessary to the system of
exploiting on which modern manufacture rests.  In other words, our
society includes a great mass of slaves, who must be fed, clothed,
housed and amused as slaves, and that their daily necessity compels
them to make the slave-wares whose use is the perpetuation of their
slavery.

To sum up, then, concerning the manner of work in civilized States,
these States are composed of three classes--a class which does not
even pretend to work, a class which pretends to work but which
produces nothing, and a class which works, but is compelled by the
other two classes to do work which is often unproductive.

Civilization therefore wastes its own resources, and will do so as
long as the present system lasts.  These are cold words with which to
describe the tyranny under which we suffer; try then to consider what
they mean.

There is a certain amount of natural material and of natural forces
in the world, and a certain amount of labour-power inherent in the
persons of the men that inhabit it.  Men urged by their necessities
and desires have laboured for many thousands of years at the task of
subjugating the forces of Nature and of making the natural material
useful to them.  To our eyes, since we cannot see into the future,
that struggle with Nature seems nearly over, and the victory of the
human race over her nearly complete.  And, looking backwards to the
time when history first began, we note that the progress of that
victory has been far swifter and more startling within the last two
hundred years than ever before.  Surely, therefore, we moderns ought
to be in all ways vastly better off than any who have gone before us.
Surely we ought, one and all of us, to be wealthy, to be well
furnished with the good things which our victory over Nature has won
for us.

But what is the real fact?  Who will dare to deny that the great mass
of civilized men are poor?  So poor are they that it is mere
childishness troubling ourselves to discuss whether perhaps they are
in some ways a little better off than their forefathers.  They are
poor; nor can their poverty be measured by the poverty of a
resourceless savage, for he knows of nothing else than his poverty;
that he should be cold, hungry, houseless, dirty, ignorant, all that
is to him as natural as that he should have a skin.  But for us, for
the most of us, civilization has bred desires which she forbids us to
satisfy, and so is not merely a niggard but a torturer also.

Thus then have the fruits of our victory over Nature been stolen from
us, thus has compulsion by Nature to labour in hope of rest, gain,
and pleasure been turned into compulsion by man to labour in hope--of
living to labour!

What shall we do then, can we mend it?

Well, remember once more that it is not our remote ancestors who
achieved the victory over Nature, but our fathers, nay, our very
selves.  For us to sit hopeless and helpless then would be a strange
folly indeed:  be sure that we can amend it.  What, then, is the
first thing to be done?

We have seen that modern society is divided into two classes, one of
which is PRIVILEGED to be kept by the labour of the other--that is,
it forces the other to work for it and takes from this inferior class
everything that it CAN take from it, and uses the wealth so taken to
keep its own members in a superior position, to make them beings of a
higher order than the others:  longer lived, more beautiful, more
honoured, more refined than those of the other class.  I do not say
that it troubles itself about its members being positively long
lived, beautiful or refined, but merely insists that they shall be so
relatively to the inferior class.  As also it cannot use the labour-
power of the inferior class fairly in producing real wealth, it
wastes it wholesale in the production of rubbish.

It is this robbery and waste on the part of the minority which keeps
the majority poor; if it could be shown that it is necessary for the
preservation of society that this should be submitted to, little more
could be said on the matter, save that the despair of the oppressed
majority would probably at some time or other destroy Society.  But
it has been shown, on the contrary, even by such incomplete
experiments, for instance, as Co-operation (so called), that the
existence of a privileged class is by no means necessary for the
production of wealth, but rather for the "government" of the
producers of wealth, or, in other words, for the upholding of
privilege.

The first step to be taken then is to abolish a class of men
privileged to shirk their duties as men, thus forcing others to do
the work which they refuse to do.  All must work according to their
ability, and so produce what they consume--that is, each man should
work as well as he can for his own livelihood, and his livelihood
should be assured to him; that is to say, all the advantages which
society would provide for each and all of its members.

Thus, at last, would true Society be founded.  It would rest on
equality of condition.  No man would be tormented for the benefit of
another--nay, no one man would be tormented for the benefit of
Society.  Nor, indeed, can that order be called Society which is not
upheld for the benefit of every one of its members.

But since men live now, badly as they live, when so many people do
not produce at all, and when so much work is wasted, it is clear
that, under conditions where all produced and no work was wasted, not
only would every one work with the certain hope of gaining a due
share of wealth by his work, but also he could not miss his due share
of rest.  Here, then, are two out of the three kinds of hope
mentioned above as an essential part of worthy work assured to the
worker.  When class robbery is abolished, every man will reap the
fruits of his labour, every man will have due rest--leisure, that is.
Some Socialists might say we need not go any further than this; it is
enough that the worker should get the full produce of his work, and
that his rest should be abundant.  But though the compulsion of man's
tyranny is thus abolished, I yet demand compensation for the
compulsion of Nature's necessity.  As long as the work is repulsive
it will still be a burden which must be taken up daily, and even so
would mar our life, even though the hours of labour were short.  What
we want to do is to add to our wealth without diminishing our
pleasure.  Nature will not be finally conquered till our work becomes
a part of the pleasure of our lives.

That first step of freeing people from the compulsion to labour
needlessly will at least put us on the way towards this happy end;
for we shall then have time and opportunities for bringing it about.
As things are now, between the waste of labour-power in mere idleness
and its waste in unproductive work, it is clear that the world of
civilization is supported by a small part of its people; when all
were working usefully for its support, the share of work which each
would have to do would be but small, if our standard of life were
about on the footing of what well-to-do and refined people now think
desirable.  We shall have labour-power to spare, and shall, in short,
be as wealthy as we please.  It will be easy to live.  If we were to
wake up some morning now, under our present system, and find it "easy
to live," that system would force us to set to work at once and make
it hard to live; we should call that "developing our resources," or
some such fine name.  The multiplication of labour has become a
necessity for us, and as long as that goes on no ingenuity in the
invention of machines will be of any real use to us.  Each new
machine will cause a certain amount of misery among the workers whose
special industry it may disturb; so many of them will be reduced from
skilled to unskilled workmen, and then gradually matters will slip
into their due grooves, and all will work apparently smoothly again;
and if it were not that all this is preparing revolution, things
would be, for the greater part of men, just as they were before the
new wonderful invention.

But when revolution has made it "easy to live," when all are working
harmoniously together and there is no one to rob the worker of his
time, that is to say, his life; in those coming days there will be no
compulsion on us to go on producing things we do not want, no
compulsion on us to labour for nothing; we shall be able calmly and
thoughtfully to consider what we shall do with our wealth of labour-
power.  Now, for my part, I think the first use we ought to make of
that wealth, of that freedom, should be to make all our labour, even
the commonest and most necessary, pleasant to everybody; for thinking
over the matter carefully I can see that the one course which will
certainly make life happy in the face of all accidents and troubles
is to take a pleasurable interest in all the details of life.  And
lest perchance you think that an assertion too universally accepted
to be worth making, let me remind you how entirely modern
civilization forbids it; with what sordid, and even terrible, details
it surrounds the life of the poor, what a mechanical and empty life
she forces on the rich; and how rare a holiday it is for any of us to
feel ourselves a part of Nature, and unhurriedly, thoughtfully, and
happily to note the course of our lives amidst all the little links
of events which connect them with the lives of others, and build up
the great whole of humanity.

But such a holiday our whole lives might be, if we were resolute to
make all our labour reasonable and pleasant.  But we must be resolute
indeed; for no half measures will help us here.  It has been said
already that our present joyless labour, and our lives scared and
anxious as the life of a hunted beast, are forced upon us by the
present system of producing for the profit of the privileged classes.
It is necessary to state what this means.  Under the present system
of wages and capital the "manufacturer" (most absurdly so called,
since a manufacturer means a person who makes with his hands) having
a monopoly of the means whereby the power to labour inherent in every
man's body can be used for production, is the master of those who are
not so privileged; he, and he alone, is able to make use of this
labour-power, which, on the other hand, is the only commodity by
means of which his "capital," that is to say, the accumulated product
of past labour, can be made productive to him.  He therefore buys the
labour-power of those who are bare of capital and can only live by
selling it to him; his purpose in this transaction is to increase his
capital, to make it breed.  It is clear that if he paid those with
whom he makes his bargain the full value of their labour, that is to
say, all that they produced, he would fail in his purpose.  But since
he is the monopolist of the means of productive labour, he can COMPEL
them to make a bargain better for him and worse for them than that;
which bargain is that after they have earned their livelihood,
estimated according to a standard high enough to ensure their
peaceable submission to his mastership, the rest (and by far the
larger part as a matter of fact) of what they produce shall belong to
him, shall be his PROPERTY to do as he likes with, to use or abuse at
his pleasure; which property is, as we all know, jealously guarded by
army and navy, police and prison; in short, by that huge mass of
physical force which superstition, habit, fear of death by
starvation--IGNORANCE, in one word, among the propertyless masses
enables the propertied classes to use for the subjection of--their
slaves.

Now, at other times, other evils resulting from this system may be
put forward.  What I want to point out now is the impossibility of
our attaining to attractive labour under this system, and to repeat
that it is this robbery (there is no other word for it) which wastes
the available labour-power of the civilized world, forcing many men
to do nothing, and many, very many more to do nothing useful; and
forcing those who carry on really useful labour to most burdensome
over-work.  For understand once for all that the "manufacturer" aims
primarily at producing, by means of the labour he has stolen from
others, not goods but profits, that is, the "wealth" that is produced
over and above the livelihood of his workmen, and the wear and tear
of his machinery.  Whether that "wealth" is real or sham matters
nothing to him.  If it sells and yields him a "profit" it is all
right.  I have said that, owing to there being rich people who have
more money than they can spend reasonably, and who therefore buy sham
wealth, there is waste on that side; and also that, owing to there
being poor people who cannot afford to buy things which are worth
making, there is waste on that side.  So that the "demand" which the
capitalist "supplies" is a false demand.  The market in which he
sells is "rigged" by the miserable inequalities produced by the
robbery of the system of Capital and Wages.

It is this system, therefore, which we must be resolute in getting
rid of, if we are to attain to happy and useful work for all.  The
first step towards making labour attractive is to get the means of
making labour fruitful, the Capital, including the land, machinery,
factories, &c., into the hands of the community, to be used for the
good of all alike, so that we might all work at "supplying" the real
"demands" of each and all--that is to say, work for livelihood,
instead of working to supply the demand of the profit market--instead
of working for profit--i.e., the power of compelling other men to
work against their will.

When this first step has been taken and men begin to understand that
Nature wills all men either to work or starve, and when they are no
longer such fools as to allow some the alternative of stealing, when
this happy day is come, we shall then be relieved from the tax of
waste, and consequently shall find that we have, as aforesaid, a mass
of labour-power available, which will enable us to live as we please
within reasonable limits.  We shall no longer be hurried and driven
by the fear of starvation, which at present presses no less on the
greater part of men in civilized communities than it does on mere
savages.  The first and most obvious necessities will be so easily
provided for in a community in which there is no waste of labour,
that we shall have time to look round and consider what we really do
want, that can be obtained without over-taxing our energies; for the
often-expressed fear of mere idleness falling upon us when the force
supplied by the present hierarchy of compulsion is withdrawn, is a
fear which is but generated by the burden of excessive and repulsive
labour, which we most of us have to bear at present.

I say once more that, in my belief, the first thing which we shall
think so necessary as to be worth sacrificing some idle time for,
will be the attractiveness of labour.  No very heavy sacrifice will
be required for attaining this object, but some WILL be required.
For we may hope that men who have just waded through a period of
strife and revolution will be the last to put up long with a life of
mere utilitarianism, though Socialists are sometimes accused by
ignorant persons of aiming at such a life.  On the other hand, the
ornamental part of modern life is already rotten to the core, and
must be utterly swept away before the new order of things is
realized.  There is nothing of it--there is nothing which could come
of it that could satisfy the aspirations of men set free from the
tyranny of commercialism.

We must begin to build up the ornamental part of life--its pleasures,
bodily and mental, scientific and artistic, social and individual--on
the basis of work undertaken willingly and cheerfully, with the
consciousness of benefiting ourselves and our neighbours by it.  Such
absolutely necessary work as we should have to do would in the first
place take up but a small part of each day, and so far would not be
burdensome; but it would be a task of daily recurrence, and therefore
would spoil our day's pleasure unless it were made at least endurable
while it lasted.  In other words, all labour, even the commonest,
must be made attractive.

How can this be done?--is the question the answer to which will take
up the rest of this paper.  In giving some hints on this question, I
know that, while all Socialists will agree with many of the
suggestions made, some of them may seem to some strange and
venturesome.  These must be considered as being given without any
intention of dogmatizing, and as merely expressing my own personal
opinion.

From all that has been said already it follows that labour, to be
attractive, must be directed towards some obviously useful end,
unless in cases where it is undertaken voluntarily by each individual
as a pastime.  This element of obvious usefulness is all the more to
be counted on in sweetening tasks otherwise irksome, since social
morality, the responsibility of man towards the life of man, will, in
the new order of things, take the place of theological morality, or
the responsibility of man to some abstract idea.  Next, the day's
work will be short.  This need not be insisted on.  It is clear that
with work unwasted it CAN be short.  It is clear also that much work
which is now a torment, would be easily endurable if it were much
shortened.

Variety of work is the next point, and a most important one.  To
compel a man to do day after day the same task, without any hope of
escape or change, means nothing short of turning his life into a
prison-torment.  Nothing but the tyranny of profit-grinding makes
this necessary.  A man might easily learn and practise at least three
crafts, varying sedentary occupation with outdoor--occupation calling
for the exercise of strong bodily energy for work in which the mind
had more to do.  There are few men, for instance, who would not wish
to spend part of their lives in the most necessary and pleasantest of
all work--cultivating the earth.  One thing which will make this
variety of employment possible will be the form that education will
take in a socially ordered community.  At present all education is
directed towards the end of fitting people to take their places in
the hierarchy of commerce--these as masters, those as workmen.  The
education of the masters is more ornamental than that of the workmen,
but it is commercial still; and even at the ancient universities
learning is but little regarded, unless it can in the long run be
made TO PAY.  Due education is a totally different thing from this,
and concerns itself in finding out what different people are fit for,
and helping them along the road which they are inclined to take.  In
a duly ordered society, therefore, young people would be taught such
handicrafts as they had a turn for as a part of their education, the
discipline of their minds and bodies; and adults would also have
opportunities of learning in the same schools, for the development of
individual capacities would be of all things chiefly aimed at by
education, instead, as now, the subordination of all capacities to
the great end of "money-making" for oneself--or one's master.  The
amount of talent, and even genius, which the present system crushes,
and which would be drawn out by such a system, would make our daily
work easy and interesting.

Under this head of variety I will note one product of industry which
has suffered so much from commercialism that it can scarcely be said
to exist, and is, indeed, so foreign from our epoch that I fear there
are some who will find it difficult to understand what I have to say
on the subject, which I nevertheless must say, since it is really a
most important one.  I mean that side of art which is, or ought to
be, done by the ordinary workman while he is about his ordinary work,
and which has got to be called, very properly, Popular Art.  This
art, I repeat, no longer exists now, having been killed by
commercialism.  But from the beginning of man's contest with Nature
till the rise of the present capitalistic system, it was alive, and
generally flourished.  While it lasted, everything that was made by
man was adorned by man, just as everything made by Nature is adorned
by her.  The craftsman, as he fashioned the thing he had under his
hand, ornamented it so naturally and so entirely without conscious
effort, that it is often difficult to distinguish where the mere
utilitarian part of his work ended and the ornamental began.  Now the
origin of this art was the necessity that the workman felt for
variety in his work, and though the beauty produced by this desire
was a great gift to the world, yet the obtaining variety and pleasure
in the work by the workman was a matter of more importance still, for
it stamped all labour with the impress of pleasure.  All this has now
quite disappeared from the work of civilization.  If you wish to have
ornament, you must pay specially for it, and the workman is compelled
to produce ornament, as he is to produce other wares.  He is
compelled to pretend happiness in his work, so that the beauty
produced by man's hand, which was once a solace to his labour, has
now become an extra burden to him, and ornament is now but one of the
follies of useless toil, and perhaps not the least irksome of its
fetters.

Besides the short duration of labour, its conscious usefulness, and
the variety which should go with it, there is another thing needed to
make it attractive, and that is pleasant surroundings.  The misery
and squalor which we people of civilization bear with so much
complacency as a necessary part of the manufacturing system, is just
as necessary to the community at large as a proportionate amount of
filth would be in the house of a private rich man.  If such a man
were to allow the cinders to be raked all over his drawing-room, and
a privy to be established in each corner of his dining-room, if he
habitually made a dust and refuse heap of his once beautiful garden,
never washed his sheets or changed his tablecloth, and made his
family sleep five in a bed, he would surely find himself in the claws
of a commission de lunatico.  But such acts of miserly folly are just
what our present society is doing daily under the compulsion of a
supposed necessity, which is nothing short of madness.  I beg you to
bring your commission of lunacy against civilization without more
delay.

For all our crowded towns and bewildering factories are simply the
outcome of the profit system.  Capitalistic manufacture, capitalistic
land-owning, and capitalistic exchange force men into big cities in
order to manipulate them in the interests of capital; the same
tyranny contracts the due space of the factory so much that (for
instance) the interior of a great weaving-shed is almost as
ridiculous a spectacle as it is a horrible one.  There is no other
necessity for all this, save the necessity for grinding profits out
of men's lives, and of producing cheap goods for the use (and
subjection) of the slaves who grind.  All labour is not yet driven
into factories; often where it is there is no necessity for it, save
again the profit-tyranny.  People engaged in all such labour need by
no means be compelled to pig together in close city quarters.  There
is no reason why they should not follow their occupations in quiet
country homes, in industrial colleges, in small towns, or, in short,
where they find it happiest for them to live.

As to that part of labour which must be associated on a large scale,
this very factory system, under a reasonable order of things (though
to my mind there might still be drawbacks to it), would at least
offer opportunities for a full and eager social life surrounded by
many pleasures.  The factories might be centres of intellectual
activity also, and work in them might well be varied very much:  the
tending of the necessary machinery might to each individual be but a
short part of the day's work.  The other work might vary from raising
food from the surrounding country to the study and practice of art
and science.  It is a matter of course that people engaged in such
work, and being the masters of their own lives, would not allow any
hurry or want of foresight to force them into enduring dirt,
disorder, or want of room.  Science duly applied would enable them to
get rid of refuse, to minimize, if not wholly to destroy, all the
inconveniences which at present attend the use of elaborate
machinery, such as smoke, stench and noise; nor would they endure
that the buildings in which they worked or lived should be ugly blots
on the fair face of the earth.  Beginning by making their factories,
buildings, and sheds decent and convenient like their homes, they
would infallibly go on to make them not merely negatively good,
inoffensive merely, but even beautiful, so that the glorious art of
architecture, now for some time slain by commercial greed, would be
born again and flourish.

So, you see, I claim that work in a duly ordered community should be
made attractive by the consciousness of usefulness, by its being
carried on with intelligent interest, by variety, and by its being
exercised amidst pleasurable surroundings.  But I have also claimed,
as we all do, that the day's work should not be wearisomely long.  It
may be said, "How can you make this last claim square with the
others?  If the work is to be so refined, will not the goods made be
very expensive?"

I do admit, as I have said before, that some sacrifice will be
necessary in order to make labour attractive.  I mean that, if we
COULD be contented in a free community to work in the same hurried,
dirty, disorderly, heartless way as we do now, we might shorten our
day's labour very much more than I suppose we shall do, taking all
kinds of labour into account.  But if we did, it would mean that our
new-won freedom of condition would leave us listless and wretched, if
not anxious, as we are now, which I hold is simply impossible.  We
should be contented to make the sacrifices necessary for raising our
condition to the standard called out for as desirable by the whole
community.  Nor only so.  We should, individually, be emulous to
sacrifice quite freely still more of our time and our ease towards
the raising of the standard of life.  Persons, either by themselves
or associated for such purposes, would freely, and for the love of
the work and for its results--stimulated by the hope of the pleasure
of creation--produce those ornaments of life for the service of all,
which they are now bribed to produce (or pretend to produce) for the
service of a few rich men.  The experiment of a civilized community
living wholly without art or literature has not yet been tried.  The
past degradation and corruption of civilization may force this denial
of pleasure upon the society which will arise from its ashes.  If
that must be, we will accept the passing phase of utilitarianism as a
foundation for the art which is to be.  If the cripple and the
starveling disappear from our streets, if the earth nourish us all
alike, if the sun shine for all of us alike, if to one and all of us
the glorious drama of the earth--day and night, summer and winter--
can be presented as a thing to understand and love, we can afford to
wait awhile till we are purified from the shame of the past
corruption, and till art arises again amongst people freed from the
terror of the slave and the shame of the robber.

Meantime, in any case, the refinement, thoughtfulness, and
deliberation of labour must indeed be paid for, but not by compulsion
to labour long hours.  Our epoch has invented machines which would
have appeared wild dreams to the men of past ages, and of those
machines we have as yet MADE NO USE.

They are called "labour-saving" machines--a commonly used phrase
which implies what we expect of them; but we do not get what we
expect.  What they really do is to reduce the skilled labourer to the
ranks of the unskilled, to increase the number of the "reserve army
of labour"--that is, to increase the precariousness of life among the
workers and to intensify the labour of those who serve the machines
(as slaves their masters).  All this they do by the way, while they
pile up the profits of the employers of labour, or force them to
expend those profits in bitter commercial war with each other.  In a
true society these miracles of ingenuity would be for the first time
used for minimizing the amount of time spent in unattractive labour,
which by their means might be so reduced as to be but a very light
burden on each individual.  All the more as these machines would most
certainly be very much improved when it was no longer a question as
to whether their improvement would "pay" the individual, but rather
whether it would benefit the community.

So much for the ordinary use of machinery, which would probably,
after a time, be somewhat restricted when men found out that there
was no need for anxiety as to mere subsistence, and learned to take
an interest and pleasure in handiwork which, done deliberately and
thoughtfully, could be made more attractive than machine work.

Again, as people freed from the daily terror of starvation find out
what they really wanted, being no longer compelled by anything but
their own needs, they would refuse to produce the mere inanities
which are now called luxuries, or the poison and trash now called
cheap wares.  No one would make plush breeches when there were no
flunkies to wear them, nor would anybody waste his time over making
oleomargarine when no one was COMPELLED to abstain from real butter.
Adulteration laws are only needed in a society of thieves--and in
such a society they are a dead letter.

Socialists are often asked how work of the rougher and more repulsive
kind could be carried out in the new condition of things.  To attempt
to answer such questions fully or authoritatively would be attempting
the impossibility of constructing a scheme of a new society out of
the materials of the old, before we knew which of those materials
would disappear and which endure through the evolution which is
leading us to the great change.  Yet it is not difficult to conceive
of some arrangement whereby those who did the roughest work should
work for the shortest spells.  And again, what is said above of the
variety of work applies specially here.  Once more I say, that for a
man to be the whole of his life hopelessly engaged in performing one
repulsive and never-ending task, is an arrangement fit enough for the
hell imagined by theologians, but scarcely fit for any other form of
society.  Lastly, if this rougher work were of any special kind, we
may suppose that special volunteers would be called on to perform it,
who would surely be forthcoming, unless men in a state of freedom
should lose the sparks of manliness which they possessed as slaves.

And yet if there be any work which cannot be made other than
repulsive, either by the shortness of its duration or the
intermittency of its recurrence, or by the sense of special and
peculiar usefulness (and therefore honour) in the mind of the man who
performs it freely,--if there be any work which cannot be but a
torment to the worker, what then?  Well, then, let us see if the
heavens will fall on us if we leave it undone, for it were better
that they should.  The produce of such work cannot be worth the price
of it.

Now we have seen that the semi-theological dogma that all labour,
under any circumstances, is a blessing to the labourer, is
hypocritical and false; that, on the other hand, labour is good when
due hope of rest and pleasure accompanies it.  We have weighed the
work of civilization in the balance and found it wanting, since hope
is mostly lacking to it, and therefore we see that civilization has
bred a dire curse for men.  But we have seen also that the work of
the world might be carried on in hope and with pleasure if it were
not wasted by folly and tyranny, by the perpetual strife of opposing
classes.


It is Peace, therefore, which we need in order that we may live and
work in hope and with pleasure.  Peace so much desired, if we may
trust men's words, but which has been so continually and steadily
rejected by them in deeds.  But for us, let us set our hearts on it
and win it at whatever cost.

What the cost may be, who can tell?  Will it be possible to win peace
peaceably?  Alas, how can it be?  We are so hemmed in by wrong and
folly, that in one way or other we must always be fighting against
them:  our own lives may see no end to the struggle, perhaps no
obvious hope of the end.  It may be that the best we can hope to see
is that struggle getting sharper and bitterer day by day, until it
breaks out openly at last into the slaughter of men by actual warfare
instead of by the slower and crueller methods of "peaceful" commerce.
If we live to see that, we shall live to see much; for it will mean
the rich classes grown conscious of their own wrong and robbery, and
consciously defending them by open violence; and then the end will be
drawing near.

But in any case, and whatever the nature of our strife for peace may
be, if we only aim at it steadily and with singleness of heart, and
ever keep it in view, a reflection from that peace of the future will
illumine the turmoil and trouble of our lives, whether the trouble be
seemingly petty, or obviously tragic; and we shall, in our hopes at
least, live the lives of men:  nor can the present times give us any
reward greater than that.



DAWN OF A NEW EPOCH



Perhaps some of my readers may think that the above title is not a
correct one:  it may be said, a new epoch is always dawning, change
is always going on, and it goes on so gradually that we do not know
when we are out of an old epoch and into a new one.  There is truth
in that, at least to this extent, that no age can see itself:  we
must stand some way off before the confused picture with its rugged
surface can resolve itself into its due order, and seem to be
something with a definite purpose carried through all its details.
Nevertheless, when we look back on history we do distinguish periods
in the lapse of time that are not merely arbitrary ones, we note the
early growth of the ideas which are to form the new order of things,
we note their development into the transitional period, and finally
the new epoch is revealed to us bearing in its full development,
unseen as yet, the seeds of the newer order still which shall
transform it in its turn into something else.

Moreover, there are periods in which even those alive in them become
more or less conscious of the change which is always going on; the
old ideas which were once so exciting to men's imaginations, now
cease to move them, though they may be accepted as dull and necessary
platitudes:  the material circumstances of man's life which were once
only struggled with in detail, and only according to a kind of law
made manifest in their working, are in such times conscious of
change, and are only accepted under protest until some means can be
found to alter them.  The old and dying order, once silent and all-
powerful, tries to express itself violently, and becomes at once
noisy and weak.  The nascent order once too weak to be conscious of
need of expression, or capable of it if it were, becomes conscious
now and finds a voice.  The silent sap of the years is being laid
aside for open assault; the men are gathering under arms in the
trenches, and the forlorn hope is ready, no longer trifling with
little solacements of the time of weary waiting, but looking forward
to mere death or the joy of victory.

Now I think, and some who read this will agree with me, that we are
now living in one of these times of conscious change; we not only
are, but we also feel ourselves to be living between the old and the
new; we are expecting something to happen, as the phrase goes:  at
such times it behoves us to understand what is the old which is
dying, what is the new which is coming into existence?  That is a
question practically important to us all, since these periods of
conscious change are also, in one way or other, times of serious
combat, and each of us, if he does not look to it and learn to
understand what is going on, may find himself fighting on the wrong
side, the side with which he really does not sympathize.

What is the combat we are now entering upon--who is it to be fought
between?  Absolutism and Democracy, perhaps some will answer.  Not
quite, I think; that contest was practically settled by the great
French Revolution; it is only its embers which are burning now:  or
at least that is so in the countries which are not belated like
Russia, for instance.  Democracy, or at least what used to be
considered Democracy, is now triumphant; and though it is true that
there are countries where freedom of speech is repressed besides
Russia, as e.g., Germany and Ireland, {6} that only happens when the
rulers of the triumphant Democracy are beginning to be afraid of the
new order of things, now becoming conscious of itself, and are being
driven into reaction in consequence.  No, it is not Absolutism and
Democracy as the French Revolution understood those two words that
are the enemies now:  the issue is deeper than it was; the two foes
are now Mastership and Fellowship.  This is a far more serious
quarrel than the old one, and involves a much completer revolution.
The grounds of conflict are really quite different.  Democracy said
and says, men shall not be the masters of others, because hereditary
privilege has made a race or a family so, and they happen to belong
to such race; they shall individually grow into being the masters of
others by the development of certain qualities under a system of
authority which ARTIFICIALLY protects the wealth of every man, if he
has acquired it in accordance with this artificial system, from the
interference of every other, or from all others combined.

The new order of things says, on the contrary, why have masters at
all? let us be FELLOWS working in the harmony of association for the
common good, that is, for the greatest happiness and completest
development of every human being in the community.

This ideal and hope of a new society founded on industrial peace and
forethought, bearing with it its own ethics, aiming at a new and
higher life for all men, has received the general name of Socialism,
and it is my firm belief that it is destined to supersede the old
order of things founded on industrial war, and to be the next step in
the progress of humanity.

Now, since I must explain further what are the aims of Socialism, the
ideal of the new epoch, I find that I must begin by explaining to you
what is the constitution of the old order which it is destined to
supplant.  If I can make that clear to you, I shall have also made
clear to you the first aim of Socialism:  for I have said that the
present and decaying order of things, like those which have gone
before it, has to be propped up by a system of artificial authority;
when that artificial authority has been swept away, harmonious
association will be felt by all men to be a necessity of their happy
and undegraded existence on the earth, and Socialism will become the
condition under which we shall all live, and it will develop
naturally, and probably with no violent conflict, whatever detailed
system may be necessary:  I say the struggle will not be over these
details, which will surely vary according to the difference of
unchangeable natural surroundings, but over the question, shall it be
mastership or fellowship?

Let us see then what is the condition of society under the last
development of mastership, the commercial system, which has taken the
place of the Feudal system.

Like all other systems of society, it is founded on the necessity of
man conquering his subsistence from Nature by labour, and also, like
most other systems that we know of, it presupposes the unequal
distribution of labour among different classes of society, and the
unequal distribution of the results of that labour:  it does not
differ in that respect from the system which it supplanted; it has
only altered the method whereby that unequal distribution should be
arranged.  There are still rich people and poor people amongst us, as
there were in the Middle Ages; nay, there is no doubt that,
relatively at least to the sum of wealth existing, the rich are
richer and the poor are poorer now than they were then.  However that
may be, in any case now as then there are people who have much work
and little wealth living beside other people who have much wealth and
little work.  The richest are still the idlest, and those who work
hardest and perform the most painful tasks are the worst rewarded for
their labour.

To me, and I should hope to my readers, this seems grossly unfair;
and I may remind you here that the world has always had a sense of
its injustice.  For century after century, while society has
strenuously bolstered up this injustice forcibly and artificially, it
has professed belief in philosophies, codes of ethics, and religions
which have inculcated justice and fair dealing between men:  nay,
some of them have gone so far as to bid us bear one another's
burdens, and have put before men the duty, and in the long run the
pleasure, of the strong working for the weak, the wise for the
foolish, the helpful for the helpless; and yet these precepts of
morality have been set aside in practice as persistently as they have
been preached in theory; and naturally so, since they attack the very
basis of class society.  I as a Socialist am bound to preach them to
you once more, assuring you that they are no mere foolish dreams
bidding us to do what we now must acknowledge to be impossible, but
reasonable rules of action, good for our defence against the tyranny
of Nature.  Anyhow, honest men have the choice before them of either
putting these theories in practice or rejecting them altogether.  If
they will but face that dilemma, I think we shall soon have a new
world of it; yet I fear they will find it hard to do so:  the theory
is old, and we have got used to it and its form of words:  the
practice is new, and would involve responsibilities we have not yet
thought much of.

Now the great difference between our present system and that of the
feudal period is that, as far as the conditions of life are
concerned, all distinction of classes is abolished except that
between rich and poor:  society is thus simplified; the arbitrary
distinction is gone, the real one remains and is far more stringent
than the arbitrary one was.  Once all society was rude, there was
little real difference between the gentleman and the non-gentleman,
and you had to dress them differently from one another in order to
distinguish them.  But now a well-to-do man is a refined and
cultivated being, enjoying to the full his share of the conquest over
Nature which the modern world has achieved, while the poor man is
rude and degraded, and has no share in the wealth conquered by modern
science from Nature:  he is certainly no better as to material
condition than the serf of the Middle Ages, perhaps he is worse:  to
my mind he is at least worse than the savage living in a good
climate.

I do not think that any thoughtful man seriously denies this:  let us
try to see what brings it about; let us see it as clearly as we all
see that the hereditary privilege of the noble caste, and the
consequent serf slavery of the workers of the Middle Ages, brought
about the peculiar conditions of that period.

Society is now divided between two classes, those who monopolize all
the means of the production of wealth save one; and those who possess
nothing except that one, the Power of Labour.  That power of labour
is useless to its possessors, and cannot be exercised without the
help of the other means of production; but those who have nothing but
labour-power--i.e., who have no means of making others work for them,
must work for themselves in order to live; and they must therefore
apply to the owners of the means of fructifying labour--i.e., the
land, machinery, &c., for leave to work that they may live.  The
possessing class (as for short we will call them) are quite prepared
to grant this leave, and indeed they must grant it if they are to use
the labour-power of the non-possessing class for their own advantage,
which is their special privilege.  But that privilege enables them to
COMPEL the non-possessing class to sell them their labour-power on
terms which ensure the continuance of their monopoly.  These terms
are at the outset very simple.  The possessing class, or masters,
allow the men just so much of the wealth produced by their labour as
will give them such a livelihood as is considered necessary at the
time, and will permit them to breed and rear children to a working
age:  that is the simple condition of the "bargain" which obtains
when the labour-power required is low in quality, what is called
unskilled labour, and when the workers are too weak or ignorant to
combine so as to threaten the masters with some form of rebellion.
When skilled labour is wanted, and the labourer has consequently cost
more to produce, and is rarer to be found, the price of the article
is higher:  as also when the commodity labour takes to thinking and
remembers that after all it is also men, and as aforesaid holds out
threats to the masters; in that case they for their part generally
think it prudent to give way, when the competition of the market
allows them to do so, and so the standard of livelihood for the
workers rises.

But to speak plainly, the greater part of the workers, in spite of
strikes and Trades' Unions, do get little more than a bare
subsistence wage, and when they grow sick or old they would die
outright if it were not for the refuge afforded them by the
workhouse, which is purposely made as prison-like and wretched as
possible, in order to prevent the lower-paid workers from taking
refuge in it before the time of their INDUSTRIAL death.

Now comes the question as to how the masters are able to force the
men to sell their commodity labour-power so dirt-cheap without
treating them as the ancients treated their slaves--i.e., with the
whip.  Well, of course you understand that the master having paid his
workmen what they can live upon, and having paid for the wear and
tear of machinery and other expenses of that kind, has for his share
whatever remains over and above, THE WHOLE OF WHICH HE GETS FROM THE
EXERCISE OF THE LABOUR-POWER POSSESSED BY THE WORKER:  he is anxious
therefore to make the most of this privilege, and competes with his
fellow-manufacturers to the utmost in the market:  so that the
distribution of wares is organized on a gambling basis, and as a
consequence many more hands are needed when trade is brisk than when
it is slack, or even in an ordinary condition:  under the stimulus
also of the lust for acquiring this surplus value of labour, the
great machines of our epoch were invented and are yearly improved,
and they act on labour in a threefold way:  first they get rid of
many hands; next they lower the quality of the labour required, so
that skilled work is wanted less and less; thirdly, the improvement
in them forces the workers to work harder while they are at work, as
notably in the cotton-spinning industry.  Also in most trades women
and children are employed, to whom it is not even pretended that a
subsistence wage is given.  Owing to all these causes, the reserve
army of labour necessary to our present system of manufactures for
the gambling market, the introduction of labour-saving machines
(labour saved for the master, mind you, not the man), and the
intensifying of the labour while it lasts, the employment of the
auxiliary labour of women and children:  owing to all this there are
in ordinary years even, not merely in specially bad years like the
current one, {7} more workers than there is work for them to do.  The
workers therefore undersell one another in disposing of their one
commodity, labour-power, and are forced to do so, or they would not
be allowed to work, and therefore would have to starve or go to the
prison called the workhouse.  This is why the masters at the present
day are able to dispense with the exercise of obvious violence which
in bygone times they used towards their slaves.

This then is the first distinction between the two great classes of
modern Society:  the upper class possesses wealth, the lower lacks
wealth; but there is another distinction to which I will now draw
your attention:  the class which lacks wealth is the class that
produces it, the class that possesses it does not produce it, it
consumes it only.  If by any chance the so-called lower class were to
perish or leave the community, production of wealth would come to a
standstill, until the wealth-owners had learned how to produce, until
they had descended from their position, and had taken the place of
their former slaves.  If on the contrary, the wealth-owners were to
disappear, production of wealth would at the worst be only hindered
for awhile, and probably would go on pretty much as it does now.

But you may say, though it is certain that some of the wealth-owners,
as landlords, holders of funds, and the like do nothing, yet there
are many of them who work hard.  Well, that is true, and perhaps
nothing so clearly shows the extreme folly of the present system than
this fact that there are so many able and industrious men employed by
it, in working hard at--nothing:  nothing or worse.  They work, but
they do not produce.

It is true that some useful occupations are in the hands of the
privileged classes, physic, education, and the fine arts, e.g.  The
men who work at these occupations are certainly working usefully; and
all that we can say against them is that they are sometimes paid too
high in proportion to the pay of other useful persons, which high pay
is given them in recognition of their being the parasites of the
possessing classes.  But even as to numbers these are not a very
large part of the possessors of wealth, and, as to the wealth they
hold, it is quite insignificant compared with that held by those who
do nothing useful.

Of these last, some, as we all agree, do not pretend to do anything
except amuse themselves, and probably these are the least harmful of
the useless classes.  Then there are others who follow occupations
which would have no place in a reasonable condition of society, as,
e.g., lawyers, judges, jailers, and soldiers of the higher grades,
and most Government officials.  Finally comes the much greater group
of those who are engaged in gambling or fighting for their individual
shares of the tribute which their class compels the working-class to
yield to it:  these are the group that one calls broadly business
men, the conductors of our commerce, if you please to call them so.

To extract a good proportion of this tribute, and to keep as much as
possible of it when extracted for oneself, is the main business of
life for these men, that is, for most well-to-do and rich people; it
is called, quite inaccurately, "money-making;" and those who are most
successful in this occupation are, in spite of all hypocritical
pretences to the contrary, the persons most respected by the public.

A word or two as to the tribute extracted from the workers as
aforesaid.  It is no trifle, but amounts to at least two-thirds of
all that the worker produces; but you must understand that it is not
all taken directly from the workman by his immediate employer, but by
the employing class.  Besides the tribute or profit of the direct
employer, which is in all cases as much as he can get amidst his
competition or war with other employers, the worker has also to pay
taxes in various forms, and the greater part of the wealth so
extorted is at the best merely wasted:  and remember, whoever SEEMS
to pay the taxes, labour in the long run is the only real taxpayer.
Then he has to pay house-rent, and very much heavier rent in
proportion to his earnings than well-to-do people have.  He has also
to pay the commission of the middle-men who distribute the goods
which he has made, in a way so wasteful that now all thinking people
cry out against it, though they are quite helpless against it in our
present society.  Finally, he has often to pay an extra tax in the
shape of a contribution to a benefit society or trades' union, which
is really a tax on the precariousness of his employment caused by the
gambling of his masters in the market.  In short, besides the profit
or the result of unpaid labour which he yields to his immediate
master he has to give back a large part of his wages to the class of
which his master is a part.

The privilege of the possessing class therefore consists in their
living on this tribute, they themselves either not working or working
unproductively--i.e., living on the labour of others; no otherwise
than as the master of ancient days lived on the labour of his slave,
or as the baron lived on the labour of his serf.  If the capital of
the rich man consists of land, he is able to force a tenant to
improve his land for him and pay him tribute in the form of rack-
rent; and at the end of the transaction has his land again, generally
improved, so that he can begin again and go on for ever, he and his
heirs, doing nothing, a mere burden on the community for ever, while
others are working for him.  If he has houses on his land he has rent
for them also, often receiving the value of the building many times
over, and in the end house and land once more.  Not seldom a piece of
barren ground or swamp, worth nothing in itself, becomes a source of
huge fortune to him from the development of a town or a district, and
he pockets the results of the labour of thousands upon thousands of
men, and calls it his property:  or the earth beneath the surface is
found to be rich in coal or minerals, and again he must be paid vast
sums for allowing others to labour them into marketable wares, to
which labour he contributes nothing.

Or again, if his capital consists of cash, he goes into the labour
market and buys the labour-power of men, women and children, and uses
it for the production of wares which shall bring him in a profit,
buying it of course at the lowest price that he can, availing himself
of their necessities to keep their livelihood down to the lowest
point which they will bear:  which indeed he MUST do, or he himself
will be overcome in the war with his fellow-capitalists.  Neither in
this case does he do any useful work, and he need not do any
semblance of it, since he may buy the brain-power of managers at a
somewhat higher rate than he buys the hand-power of the ordinary
workman.  But even when he does seem to be doing something, and
receives the pompous title of "organizer of labour," he is not really
organizing LABOUR, but the battle with his immediate enemies, the
other capitalists, who are in the same line of business with himself.

Furthermore, though it is true, as I have said, that the working-
class are the only producers, yet only a part of them are allowed to
produce usefully; for the men of the non-producing classes having
often much more wealth than they can USE are forced to WASTE it in
mere luxuries and follies, that on the one hand harm themselves, and
on the other withdraw a very large part of the workers from useful
work, thereby compelling those who do produce usefully to work the
harder and more grievously:  in short, the essential accompaniment of
the system is waste.

How could it be otherwise, since it is a system of war?  I have
mentioned incidentally that all the employers of labour are at war
with each other, and you will probably see that, according to my
account of the relations between the two great classes, they also are
at war.  Each can only gain at the others' loss:  the employing class
is forced to make the most of its privilege, the possession of the
means for the exercise of labour, and whatever it gets to itself can
only be got at the expense of the working-class; and that class in
its turn can only raise its standard of livelihood at the expense of
the possessing class; it is FORCED to yield as little tribute to it
as it can help; there is therefore constant war always going on
between these two classes, whether they are conscious of it or not.

To recapitulate:  In our modern society there are two classes, a
useful and a useless class; the useless class is called the upper,
the useful the lower class.  The useless or upper class, having the
monopoly of all the means of the production of wealth save the power
of labour, can and does compel the useful or lower class to work for
its own disadvantage, and for the advantage of the upper class; nor
will the latter allow the useful class to work on any other terms.
This arrangement necessarily means an increasing contest, first of
the classes one against the other, and next of the individuals of
each class among themselves.

Most thinking people admit the truth of what I have just stated, but
many of them believe that the system, though obviously unjust and
wasteful, is necessary (though perhaps they cannot give their reasons
for their belief), and so they can see nothing for it but palliating
the worst evils of the system:  but, since the various palliatives in
fashion at one time or another have failed each in its turn, I call
upon them, firstly, to consider whether the system itself might not
be changed, and secondly, to look round and note the signs of
approaching change.

Let us remember first that even savages live, though they have poor
tools, no machinery, and no co-operation, in their work:  but as soon
as a man begins to use good tools and work with some kind of co-
operation he becomes able to produce more than enough for his own
bare necessaries, All industrial society is founded on that fact,
even from the time when workmen were mere chattel slaves.  What a
strange society then is this of ours, wherein while one set of people
cannot use their wealth, they have so much, but are obliged to waste
it, another set are scarcely if at all better than those hapless
savages who have neither tools nor co-operation!  Surely if this
cannot be set right, civilized mankind must write itself down a
civilized fool.

Here is the workman now, thoroughly organized for production, working
for production with complete co-operation, and through marvellous
machines; surely if a slave in Aristotle's time could do more than
keep himself alive, the present workman can do much more--as we all
very well know that he can.  Why therefore should he be otherwise
than in a comfortable condition?  Simply because of the class system,
which with one hand plunders, and with the other wastes the wealth
won by the workman's labour.  If the workman had the full results of
his labour he would in all cases be comfortably off, if he were
working in an unwasteful way.  But in order to work unwastefully he
must work for his own livelihood, and not to enable another man to
live without producing:  if he has to sustain another man in idleness
who is capable of working for himself, he is treated unfairly; and,
believe me, he will only do so as long he is compelled to submit by
ignorance and brute force.  Well, then, he has a right to claim the
wealth produced by his labour, and in consequence to insist that all
shall produce who are able to do so; but also undoubtedly his labour
must be organized, or he will soon find himself relapsing into the
condition of the savage.  But in order that his labour may be
organized properly he must have only one enemy to contend with--
Nature to wit, who as it were eggs him on to the conflict against
herself, and is grateful to him for overcoming her; a friend in the
guise of an enemy.  There must be no contention of man with man, but
ASSOCIATION instead; so only can labour be really organized,
harmoniously organized.  But harmony cannot co-exist with contention
for individual gain:  men must work for the common gain if the world
is to be raised out of its present misery; therefore that claim of
the workman (that is of every able man) must be subject to the fact
that he is but a part of a harmonious whole:  he is worthless without
the co-operation of his fellows, who help him according to their
capacities:  he ought to feel, and will feel when he has his right
senses, that he is working for his own interest when he is working
for that of the community.

So working, his work must always be profitable, therefore no obstacle
must be thrown in the way of his work:  the means whereby his labour-
power can be exercised must be free to him.  The privilege of the
proprietary class must come to an end.  Remember that at present the
custom is that a person so privileged is in the position of a man
(with a policeman or so to help) guarding the gate of a field which
will supply livelihood to whomsoever can work in it:  crowds of
people who don't want to die come to that gate; but there stands law
and order, and says "pay me five shillings before you go in;" and he
or she that hasn't the five shillings has to stay outside, and die--
or live in the workhouse.  Well, that must be done away with; the
field must be free to everybody that can use it.  To throw aside even
this transparent metaphor, those means of the fructification of
labour, the land, machinery, capital, means of transit, &c., which
are now monopolized by those who cannot use them, but who abuse them
to force unpaid labour out of others, must be free to those who can
use them; that is to say, the workers properly organized for
production; but you must remember that this will wrong no man,
because as all will do some service to the community--i.e., as there
will be no non-producing class, the organized workers will be the
whole community, there will be no one left out.

Society will thus be recast, and labour will be free from all
compulsion except the compulsion of Nature, which gives us nothing
for nothing.  It would be futile to attempt to give you details of
the way in which this would be carried out; since the very essence of
it is freedom and the abolition of all arbitrary or artificial
authority; but I will ask you to understand one thing:  you will no
doubt want to know what is to become of private property under such a
system, which at first sight would not seem to forbid the
accumulation of wealth, and along with that accumulation the
formation of new classes of rich and poor.

Now private property as at present understood implies the holding of
wealth by an individual as against all others, whether the holder can
use it or not:  he may, and not seldom he does, accumulate capital,
or the stored-up labour of past generations, and neither use it
himself nor allow others to use it:  he may, and often he does,
engross the first necessity of labour, land, and neither use it
himself or allow any one else to use it; and though it is clear that
in each case he is injuring the community, the law is sternly on his
side.  In any case a rich man accumulates property, not for his own
use, but in order that he may evade with impunity the law of Nature
which bids man labour for his livelihood, and also that he may enable
his children to do the same, that he and they may belong to the upper
or useless class:  it is not wealth that he accumulates, well-being,
well-doing, bodily and mental; he soon comes to the end of his real
needs in that respect, even when they are most exacting:  it is power
over others, what our forefathers called RICHES, that he collects;
power (as we have seen) to force other people to live for his
advantage poorer lives than they should live.  Understand that that
MUST be the result of the possession of RICHES.

Now this power to compel others to live poorly Socialism would
abolish entirely, and in that sense would make an end of private
property:  nor would it need to make laws to prevent accumulation
artificially when once people had found out that they could employ
themselves, and that thereby every man could enjoy the results of his
own labour:  for Socialism bases the rights of the individual to
possess wealth on his being able to use that wealth for his own
personal needs, and, labour being properly organized, every person,
male or female, not in nonage or otherwise incapacitated from
working, would have full opportunity to produce wealth and thereby to
satisfy his own personal needs; if those needs went in any direction
beyond those of an average man, he would have to make personal
sacrifices in order to satisfy them; he would have, for instance, to
work longer hours, or to forego some luxury that he did not care for
in order to obtain something which he very much desired:  so doing he
would at the worst injure no one:  and you will clearly see that
there is no other choice for him between so doing and his forcing
some one else to forego HIS special desires; and this latter
proceeding by the way, when it is done without the sanction of the
most powerful part of society, is called THEFT; though on the big
scale and duly sanctioned by artificial laws, it is, as we have seen,
the groundwork of our present system.  Once more, that system refuses
permission to people to produce unless under artificial restrictions;
under Socialism, every one who could produce would be free to
produce, so that the price of an article would be just the cost of
its production, and what we now call profit would no longer exist:
thus, for instance, if a person wanted chairs, he would accumulate
them till he had as many as he could use, and then he would stop,
since he would not have been able to buy them for less than their
cost of production and could not sell them for more:  in other words,
they would be nothing else than chairs; under the present system they
may be means of compulsion and destruction as formidable as loaded
rifles.

No one therefore would dispute with a man the possession of what he
had acquired without injury to others, and what he could use without
injuring them, and it would so remove temptations toward the abuse of
possession, that probably no laws would be necessary to prevent it.

A few words now as to the differentiation of reward of labour, as I
know my readers are sure to want an exposition of the Socialist views
here as to those who direct labour or who have specially excellent
faculties towards production.  And, first, I will look on the super-
excellent workman as an article presumably needed by the community;
and then say that, as with other articles so with this, the community
must pay the cost of his production:  for instance, it will have to
seek him out, to develop his special capacities, and satisfy any
needs he may have (if any) beyond those of an average man, so long as
the satisfaction of those needs is not hurtful to the community.

Furthermore, you cannot give him more than he can use so he will not
ask for more, and will not take it:  it is true that his work may be
more special than another's, but it is not more necessary if you have
organized labour properly; the ploughman and the fisherman are as
necessary to society as the scientist or the artist, I will not say
more necessary:  neither is the difficulty of producing the more
special and excellent work at all proportionate to its speciality or
excellence:  the higher workman produces his work as easily perhaps
as the lower does his work; if he does not do so, you must give him
extra leisure, extra means for supplying the waste of power in him,
but you can give him nothing more.  The only reward that you CAN give
the excellent workman is opportunity for developing and exercising
his excellent capacity.  I repeat, you CAN give him nothing more
worth his having:  all other rewards are either illusory or harmful.
I must say in passing, that our present system of dealing with what
is called a man of genius is utterly absurd:  we cruelly starve him
and repress his capacity when he is young; we foolishly pamper and
flatter him and again repress his capacity when he is middle-aged or
old:  we get the least out of him, not the most.

These last words concern mere rarities in the way of workmen; but in
this respect it is only a matter of degree; the point of the whole
thing is this, that the director of labour is in his place because he
is fit for it, not by a mere accident; being fit for it, he does it
easier than he would do other work, and needs no more compensation
for the wear and tear of life than another man does, and not needing
it will not claim it, since it would be no use to him; his special
reward for his special labour is, I repeat, that he can do it easily,
and so does not feel it a burden; nay, since he can do it WELL he
likes doing it, since indeed the main pleasure of life is the
exercise of energy in the development of our special capacities.
Again, as regards the workmen who are under his direction, he needs
no special dignity or authority; they know well enough that so long
as he fulfils his function and really does direct them, if they do
not heed him it will be at the cost of their labour being more
irksome and harder.  All this, in short, is what is meant by the
organization of labour, which is, in other words, finding out what
work such and such people are fittest for and leaving them free to do
that:  we won't take the trouble to do that now, with the result that
people's best faculties are wasted, and that work is a heavy burden
to them, which they naturally shirk as much as they can; it should be
rather a pleasure to them:  and I say straight out that, unless we
find some means to make all work more or less pleasurable, we shall
never escape from the great tyranny of the modern world.

Having mentioned the difference between the competitive and
commercial ideas on the subject of the individual holding of wealth
and the relative position of different groups of workmen, I will very
briefly say something on what for want of a better word I must call
the political position which we take up, or at least what we look
forward to in the long run.  The substitution of association for
competition is the foundation of Socialism, and will run through all
acts done under it, and this must act as between nations as well as
between individuals:  when profits can no more be made, there will be
no necessity for holding together masses of men to draw together the
greatest proportion of profit to their locality, or to the real or
imaginary union of persons and corporations which is now called a
nation.  What we now call a nation is a body whose function it is to
assert the special welfare of its incorporated members at the expense
of all other similar bodies:  the death of competition will deprive
it of this function; since there will be no attack there need be no
defence, and it seems to me that this function being taken away from
the nation it can have no other, and therefore must cease to exist as
a political entity.  On this side of the movement opinion is growing
steadily.  It is clear that, quite apart from Socialism, the idea of
local administration is pushing out that of centralized government:
to take a remarkable case:  in the French Revolution of 1793, the
most advanced party was centralizing:  in the latest French
revolution, that of the Commune of 1871, it was federalist.  Or take
Ireland, the success which is to-day attending the struggles of
Ireland for independence is, I am quite sure, owing to the spread of
this idea:  it no longer seems a monstrous proposition to liberal-
minded Englishmen that a country should administer its own affairs:
the feeling that it is not only just, but also very convenient to all
parties for it to do so, is extinguishing the prejudices fostered by
centuries of oppressive and wasteful mastership.  And I believe that
Ireland will show that her claim for self-government is not made on
behalf of national rivalry, but rather on behalf of genuine
independence; the consideration, on the one hand, of the needs of her
own population, and, on the other, goodwill towards that of other
localities.  Well, the spread of this idea will make our political
work as Socialists the easier; men will at last come to see that the
only way to avoid the tyranny and waste of bureaucracy is by the
Federation of Independent Communities:  their federation being for
definite purposes:  for furthering the organization of labour, by
ascertaining the real demand for commodities, and so avoiding waste:
for organizing the distribution of goods, the migration of persons--
in short, the friendly intercommunication of people whose interests
are common, although the circumstances of their natural surroundings
made necessary differences of life and manners between them.

I have thus sketched something of the outline of Socialism, by
showing that its aim is first to get rid of the monopoly of the means
of fructifying labour, so that labour may be free to all, and its
resulting wealth may not be engrossed by a few, and so cause the
misery and degradation of the many:  and, secondly, that it aims at
organizing labour so that none of it may be wasted, using as a means
thereto the free development of each man's capacity; and, thirdly,
that it aims at getting rid of national rivalry, which in point of
fact means a condition of perpetual war, sometimes of the money-bag,
sometimes of the bullet, and substituting for this worn-out
superstition a system of free communities living in harmonious
federation with each other, managing their own affairs by the free
consent of their members; yet acknowledging some kind of centre whose
function it would be to protect the principle whose practice the
communities should carry out; till at last those principles would be
recognized by every one always and intuitively, when the last
vestiges of centralization would die out.

I am well aware that this complete Socialism, which is sometimes
called Communism, cannot be realized all at once; society will be
changed from its basis when we make the form of robbery called profit
impossible by giving labour full and free access to the means of its
fructification--i.e., to raw material.  The demand for this
emancipation of labour is the basis on which all Socialists may
unite.  On more indefinite grounds they cannot meet other groups of
politicians; they can only rejoice at seeing the ground cleared of
controversies which are really dead, in order that the last
controversy may be settled that we can at present foresee, and the
question solved as to whether or no it is necessary, as some people
think it is, that society should be composed of two groups of
dishonest persons, slaves submitting to be slaves, yet for ever
trying to cheat their masters, and masters conscious of their having
no support for their dishonesty of eating the common stock without
adding to it save the mere organization of brute force, which they
have to assert for ever in all details of life against the natural
desire of man to be free.

It may be hoped that we of this generation may be able to prove that
it is unnecessary; but it will, doubt it not, take many generations
yet to prove that it is necessary for such degradation to last as
long as humanity does; and when that is finally proved we shall at
least have one hope left--that humanity will not last long.



Footnotes:

{1}  Falsely; because the privileged classes have at their back the
force of the Executive by means of which to compel the unprivileged
to accept their terms; if this is "free competition" there is no
meaning in words.

{2}  Read at the Conference convened by the Fabian Society at South
Place Institute, June 11, 1886.

{3}  They HAVE been "rather rough," you may say, and have done more
than merely hold their sentimental position.  Well, I still say
(February 1888) that the present open tyranny which sends political
opponents to prison, both in England and Ireland, and breaks Radical
heads in the street for attempting to attend political meetings, is
not Tory, but Whig; not the old Tory "divine right of kings," but the
new Tory, i.e., Tory-tinted Whig, "divine right of property" made
Bloody Sunday possible.  I admit that I did not expect in 1886 that
we should in 1887 and 1888 be having such a brilliant example of the
tyranny of a parliamentary majority; in fact, I did not reckon on the
force of the impenetrable stupidity of the Prigs in alliance with the
Whigs marching under the rather ragged banner of sham Toryism.

{4}  As true now (February 1888) as then:  the murder of the Chicago
Anarchists, to wit.

{5}  I suppose he was speaking of the frame houses of Kent.

{6}  And the brick and mortar country London, also, it seems (Feb.
1888).

{7}  1886, to wit.




End of the Project Gutenberg eText Signs of Change

