Part 18 (2/2)
Imperialism and militarism, which in most countries const.i.tute the chief form in which capitalism is being fought by Socialists, are actually considered as of secondary importance, on the ground that through acquiescing in them it becomes possible to hasten a few reforms, such as have already been granted by the capitalists of several other countries without any Socialist surrender and even without Socialist pressure of any kind.
The recent appeal of the _New Age_, for ”a hundred gentlemen of ability”
to save England, its regret that no truly intelligent and benevolent ”governing cla.s.s” or ”Platonic guardians” are to be found, and its weekly disparagement of democracy do not offer much promise that it will soon turn in the radical direction. On the contrary it predicts that the firm possession of political power by the wealthy cla.s.ses is foredoomed to result, as in the Roman Empire, in the creation of two main cla.s.ses, each of which must become corrupt, ”the one by wealth and the other by poverty,” and that finally the latter must become incapable of corporate resistance. The familiar and scientifically demonstrated fact of the physical and moral degeneration of a considerable part of the British working people doubtless suggests to many persons such pessimistic conclusions. ”It is hopeless in our view,” the _New Age_ concludes, ”to expect that the poor and ignorant, however desperate and however numerous, will ever succeed in displacing their wealthy rulers. No slave revolt in the history of the world has ever succeeded by its own power.
In these days, moreover, the chances of success are even smaller. One machine gun is equal to a mob.”[139]
Indeed the distrust of democracy is so universal among British Socialists that Belloc, Chesterton and other Liberals accuse them plausibly, but unjustly, of actually representing an aristocratic standpoint. In an article ent.i.tled ”Why I Am Not A Socialist,” Mr.
Chesterton expresses a belief, which he says is almost unknown among the Socialists of England, namely, a belief ”in the ma.s.ses of the common people.”[140] Mr. Belloc, in a debate against Bernard Shaw, predicted that Socialism, if it comes in England, will probably be simply ”another of the infinite and perpetually renewed dodges of the English aristocracy.”
It may be well doubted if any of the more important of the world's conservative, aristocratic, or reactionary forces (except the doctrinaire Liberals) are opposed to Socialism as defined by the Fabian Society, _i.e._ a gradual movement in the direction of collectivism. Not only Czar and Kaiser but even the Catholic Church may be claimed as Socialistic by this standard. Mr. Hubert Bland, one of the original Fabian Essayists and a very influential member of the Society, himself a Catholic, actually a.s.serts that the Church never has attacked Fabian or true Socialism. In view of the fact that the Church is at war with the Socialist Parties of Italy, France, Belgium, Austria, Germany, the United States, and every country where both the Church and the Socialists are a political power, in view of the wholesale and most explicit denunciations by Popes and high ecclesiastics, and the war being waged against the Socialist Parties at every point, Mr. Eland's argument has some interest.
Having defined Socialism as ”the increase of State rights” and ”the tendency to limit the proprietary rights of the individual and to widen the proprietary rights and activities of the community” or as the ”control of property by the State and munic.i.p.ality,” Mr. Bland has, of course, no difficulty in showing that the Catholic Church has never opposed it--though many individualistic Catholics have done so.
”No fewer than two Popes,” writes Mr. Bland, ”are said to have condemned Socialism in authoritative utterances, but when I examine and a.n.a.lyze these condemnations, I find it is not Socialism in the sense I have defined it here, that is condemned.”[141] It is indeed true that few of the most bitter and persistent enemies of the Socialist movement condemn ”Socialism” as defined by Mr. Bland and his ”State Socialist”
a.s.sociates.
This capitalistic collectivism promoted by the Fabian Society has embodied itself practically in the movement towards ”munic.i.p.al Socialism” of which so much was heard some years ago, first in Great Britain and later in other countries. It is now from ten to twenty years since many British cities, notably Glasgow, began munic.i.p.al experiments on a large scale that were branded by Socialists and non-Socialists alike, as munic.i.p.al Socialism. The first of these experiments included not only the munic.i.p.alization of street railways, electric light and current, and so on, but even the provision of munic.i.p.al slaughter houses, bathing establishments, and outdoor amus.e.m.e.nts. The later stages have developed in a somewhat different direction. The chief reforms under discussion everywhere seem now to be the proposals that the munic.i.p.alities should provide housing accommodations for the poorer elements of the population, and that the health of the children should be looked after, even to the extent of providing free lunches in public schools. If less had been heard of ”munic.i.p.al Socialism” in the last year or two, this is merely because reforms on a national scale have for the moment received the greater share of public attention. This does not necessarily mean that the national reforms are more important than the munic.i.p.al, but only that the latter came first because they were easier to inaugurate, though perhaps more difficult to carry to a successful conclusion.
But the first popularity of the munic.i.p.al reform movement, both in Great Britain and in other countries, has received at least a temporary setback as the relations between this ”munic.i.p.al Socialism” and taxation were recognized. Both the non-taxpaying working people and the small taxpaying middle cla.s.s saw that the profits of the new munic.i.p.al enterprises went to a considerable extent towards decreasing the taxation of the well-to-do instead of conferring benefits on the majority. This might appear strange, since under universal suffrage the non-taxpaying and non-landowning majority would be expected to dominate.
But in Great Britain, as well as elsewhere, central governments, in the firm control of taxpayers and landowners, exercise a strict control over the munic.i.p.alities, so that this kind of reform will prove advantageous chiefly to the landlords, by enabling them to raise rents in proportion to the benefits gained by tenants; and to the taxpaying minority, by making it possible to use the profits of munic.i.p.al undertakings for the purpose of reducing taxes.
The tendency toward the extension of munic.i.p.al enterprises to be noted in all the important cities of the world, is hastened by the public belief that there is no other possible means of preventing the exploitation of all cla.s.ses, and consequent widespread injury to trade, building, and industry in general, by public service corporations. But it must be observed that whatever munic.i.p.alization there is will continue to be under the control of the taxpayers, landowners, and business men and largely in their interest as long as national governments remain in capitalist hands.
The national social reform administrations that are coming into power in so many countries are encouraging various forms of taxpayers' ”munic.i.p.al Socialism.” The ultraconservative governments of Germany, Austria, and Belgium all permit the cities to engage even in the public feeding of school children, while the reactionary national government of Hungary has undertaken to provide for the housing of 25,000 working people at Budapest. The conservative _London Daily Mail_ cries out that the Hungarian minister, Dr. Wekerle has ”stolen a march on the Socialists,”
but that it is the ”right sort of Socialism,” and that ”it has been left to the leader of the privileged Parliament [the Hungarian Parliament representing not the small capitalists, but the landed n.o.bility and gentry] to make the first start.” And there is little doubt that both the provision of houses for the working people and the public feeding of school children rest on precisely the same principles as the social reforms now being undertaken by national governments, such as that of Great Britain, and are, indeed, the ”right sort of Socialism” from the capitalist standpoint.
Taking the munic.i.p.al reformer as a type of the so-called Socialist, Mr.
Belloc, a prominent Liberal Member of Parliament and an anti-Socialist, says that ”in the atmosphere in which he works and as regards the susceptibilities which he fears to offend,” that the munic.i.p.al Socialist is entirely of the capitalist cla.s.s. ”You cannot make revolutions without revolutionaries,” he continues, ”and anything less revolutionary than your munic.i.p.al reformer never trod the earth. The very conception is alien to this cla.s.s of persons; usually he is desperately frightened as well. Yet it is quite certain that so vast a change as Socialism presupposes cannot be carried out without hitting. When one sees it verbally advocated (and in practice s.h.i.+rked) by men who have never hit anything in their lives, and who are even afraid of a scene with a waiter in a restaurant, one is not inclined to believe in the reality of the creed.” Mr. Belloc concludes finally that all that this kind of Socialism has done during its moments of greatest activity has tended merely to recognize the capitalist more and more and to stereotype the gulf between him and the other cla.s.ses.[142]
And just as Mr. Belloc has reproached the Socialists for their conservatism, so the _New Age_ and other mouthpieces of Socialism condemn the non-Socialist radicals who const.i.tute one of the chief elements among the supporters of the present government (including Mr.
Belloc) as being too radical. In the literature of the Fabian Society also, the accusation against the Liberals of being too revolutionary is quite frequent. Years ago Mr. Sidney Webb accused them of having ”the revolutionary tradition in their bones,” of conceiving society as ”a struggle of warring interests,” and said that they would reform _nothing_ ”unless it be done at the expense of their enemies.” While this latter accusation is scarcely true, either of the British Liberals or of the revolutionary Socialists of the Continent, it is obvious that the _most important_ reforms of the Socialists, those to which greatest efforts must necessarily be given, those which alone must be fought for, are precisely the ones that must be brought about ”at the expense of the enemy.”
In no other country has public opinion either within the Socialist movement or outside of it so completely despaired of democracy and the people. In none has the spirit of popular revolt and militant radicalism been so long dormant. Yet, there can be little doubt that the British ma.s.ses, encouraged by those of France, Germany, and other countries, will one day recover that self-confidence and self-a.s.sertion they seem to have lost since the times of the ”Levellers” of the Commonwealth, two hundred and fifty years ago. It may take years before this new revolutionary movement gains the momentum it already possesses in Germany and France. But the great strikes of 1910, 1911, and 1912 (see Part III, Chapter VI) and the changes in politics that have accompanied these strikes show that this movement has already begun. There is already a strong division of opinion within the Socialistic ”Independent Labour Party,” and this organization has also taken issue on several important matters with the non-Socialist Labour Party, of which, however, it is still a part.
After the unsatisfactory results of the elections of 1910 the conflict within the Independent Labour Party became more acute than ever. Mr.
Barnes, then chairman of the Labour Party itself, and Mr. Keir Hardie, the chief figure in its Socialistic (_Independent Labour Party_) section, criticized severely the tactics that had been followed by the majority, _led also by two members of the same ”Socialistic” section_, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Snowden. It is true that the difference was not very fundamental, but it is interesting to note that MacDonald and Snowden and their avowed non-Socialist trade-union allies were accused of giving so much to the Liberals as even to weaken the position of the Labour Party itself to say nothing of the still greater inconsistency of such compromises with anything approaching Socialism. Mr. Barnes and Mr. Hardie pointed out that the timid tactics pursued had endangered not only the fight against the House of Lords, but also the effort to keep down the naval budget and the proposed solution of the unemployment question that was to have acknowledged ”the right to work.” That is, Mr.
MacDonald and Mr. Snowden had been so anxious to please the Liberal government, that they had risked even these moderate reforms, which were favored by many anti-Socialistic Radicals.
At the ”Independents'” 1911 conference at Birmingham, again, a motion was proposed by the radical element, Hall, MacLachlan, and others, which demanded that this Party should cease voting perpetually for the government merely because the government claimed that every question required a vote of confidence, and that they should put their own issues in the foreground, and vote on all others according to their merits.
This very consistent resolution, in complete accord with the position of Socialist Parties the world over, was however voted down by the ”Independents,” as it had been shortly previously at the conference of the non-Socialist Labour Party of which they are a section. The executive committee brought in an amendment in the contrary sense to that of the radical resolution, and this amendment was ably supported by MacDonald. Hardie and Barnes, however, persuaded the Congress to vote down both resolution and amendment on the ground that the ”Independents”
in Parliament _ought to support the Liberal and Radical government, except in certain crises_--as ill.u.s.trations of which Barnes mentioned the Labourites' opposition to armaments and their demand for the right to work. Keir Hardie also declared that he was not satisfied with the conduct of the Labour Party in Parliament; his motion condemning the government's action in the Welsh coal strike, for example, had secured only seventeen of their forty votes. He claimed that the influence of the Liberals over the party was due, not to their social reform program, but to their pa.s.sing of the trade-union law permitting picketing after the elections of 1906, and that he feared them more than he did the Conservatives. However, he thought that this Liberal influence was now on the decline, and said that if the Liberals attempted to strengthen the House of Lords, as suggested in the preamble to their resolution, abolis.h.i.+ng its veto power, the Labour Party would be ready to vote against the government.
<script>