Part 16 (2/2)
Marxian Socialism regarded itself as a thing apart. Marx had discovered a panacea for the ills of society: the old was to be cleared away and all things were to become new. In Marx's own thought evolution and revolution were tangled and alternated. The evolutionary side was essential to it; the idea of revolutionary catastrophe is almost an excrescence. But to the Marxians (of whom Marx once observed that he was not one) this excrescence became the whole thing. People were divided into those who advocated the revolution and those who did not. The business of propaganda was to increase the number of adherents of the new at the expense of the supporters of the old.
The Fabians regarded Socialism as a principle already in part embodied in the const.i.tution of society, gradually extending its influence because it harmonised with the needs and desires of men in countries where the large industry prevails.
Fabian Socialism is in fact an interpretation of the spirit of the times. I have pointed out already that the munic.i.p.alisation of monopolies, a typically Fabian process, had its origin decades before the Society was founded, and all that the Fabian Society did was to explain its social implications and advocate its wider extension. The same is true of the whole Fabian political policy. Socialism in English politics grew up because of the necessity for State intervention in the complex industrial and social organisation of a Great State. Almost before the evil results of Laissez Faire had culminated Robert Owen was pointing the way to factory legislation, popular education, and the communal care of children. The Ten Hours Act of 1847 was described by Marx himself as ”the victory of a principle,” that is, of ”the political economy of the working cla.s.s.”[46] That victory was frequently repeated in the next thirty years, and collective protection of Labour in the form of Factory Acts, Sanitary Acts, Truck Acts, Employers' Liability Acts, and Trade Board Acts became a recognised part of the policy of both political parties.
Fabian teaching has had more direct influence in promoting the administrative protection of Labour. The Fair Wages policy, now everywhere prevalent in State and Munic.i.p.al employment, was, as has been already described, if not actually invented, at any rate largely popularised by the Society. It was a working-cla.s.s demand, and it has been everywhere put forward by organised labour, but its success would have been slower had the manual workers been left to fight their own battle.
I have said that the work of the Society was the interpretation of an existing movement, the explanation and justification of tendencies which originated in Society at large, and not in societies, Fabian or other.
That work is only less valuable than the formulation of new ideas. None of the Fabians would claim to rank beside the great promulgators of new ideas, such as Owen and Marx. But the interpretation of tendencies is necessary if progress is to be sustained and if it is to be unbroken by casual reaction. In an old country like ours, with vast forces of inertia built up by ages of precedents, by a cla.s.s system which forms a part of the life of the nation, by a distribution of wealth which even yet scarcely yields to the pressure of graduated taxation, legislation is always in arrear of the needs of the times; the social structure is always old-fas.h.i.+oned and out of date, and reform always tends to be late, and even too late, unless there are agitators with the ability to attract public attention calling on the men in power to take action.
But this victory of a principle is not a complete victory of the principles of Socialism. It is a limitation of the power of the capitalist to use his capital as he pleases, and Socialism is much more than a series of social safeguards to the private owners.h.i.+p of capital.
Munic.i.p.al owners.h.i.+p is a further step, but even this will not carry us far because the capital suitable for munic.i.p.al management on existing lines is but a small fraction of the whole, and because munic.i.p.al control does not directly affect the amount of capital in the hands of the capitalists who are always expropriated with ample compensation.
We have made some progress along another line. Supertax, death duties, and taxes on unearned increment do a little to diminish the wealth of the few: old age pensions, national insurance, and workmen's compensation do something towards mitigating the poverty of the poor.
But it must be confessed that we have made but little progress along the main road of Socialism. Private owners.h.i.+p of capital and land flourishes almost as vigorously as it did thirty years ago. Its grosser cruelties have been checked, but the thing itself has barely been touched. Time alone will show whether progress is to be along existing lines, whether the power of the owners of capital over the wealth it helps to create and over the lives of the workers whom it enslaves will gradually fade away, as the power of our kings over the Government of our country has faded, the form remaining when the substance has vanished, or whether the community will at last consciously accept the teaching of Socialism, setting itself definitely to put an end to large-scale private capitalism, and undertaking itself the direct control of industry. The intellectual outlook is bright; the principles of Socialism are already accepted by a sensible proportion of the men and women in all cla.s.ses who take the trouble to think, and if we must admit that but little has yet been done, we may well believe that in the fullness of time our ideas will prevail. The present war is giving the old world a great shake, and an era of precipitated reconstruction may ensue if the opportunity be wisely handled.
The influence of the Fabian Society on political thought is already the theme of doctoral theses by graduates, especially in American universities, but it has not yet found much place in weightier compilation. Indeed so far as I know the only serious attempts in this country to describe its character and estimate its proportions is to be found in an admirable little book by Mr. Ernest Barker of New College, Oxford, ent.i.tled ”Political Thought in England from Herbert Spencer to the Present Day.”[47] The author, dealing with the early Fabians, points out that ”Mill rather than Marx was their starting point,” but he infers from this that ”they start along the line suggested by Mill with an attack on rent as the 'unearned increment' of land,” a curious inaccuracy since our earliest contribution to the theory of Socialism, Tract No. 7, ”Capital and Land,” was expressly directed to emphasising the comparative unimportance of Land Nationalisation, and nothing in the later work of the Society has been inconsistent with this att.i.tude. Then Mr. Barker goes on: ”Fabianism began after 1884 to supply a new philosophy in place of Benthamite Individualism. Of the new gospel of collectivism a German writer[48] has said Webb was the Bentham and Shaw the Mill.[49] Without a.s.signing roles we may fairly say there is some resemblance between the influence of Benthamism on legislation after 1830 and the influence of Fabianism on legislation since, at any rate, 1906.[50] In either case we have a small circle of thinkers and investigators in quiet touch with politicians: in either case we have a 'permeation' of general opinion by the ideas of these thinkers and investigators.... It is probable that the historian of the future will emphasise Fabianism in much the same way as the historian of to-day emphasises Benthamism.”[51]
Mr. Barker next explains that ”Fabianism has its own political creed, if it is a political creed consequential upon an economic doctrine. That economic doctrine advocates the socialisation of rent. But the rents which the Fabians would socialise are not only rents from land. Rent in the sense of unearned increments may be drawn, and is drawn, from other sources. The successful entrepreneur for instance draws a rent of ability from his superior equipment and education. The socialisation of every kind of rent will necessarily arm the State with great funds which it must use.... Shaw can define the two interconnected aims of Fabianism as 'the gradual extension of the franchise and the transfer of rent and interest to the State.'”
As Mr. Barker may not be alone in a slight misinterpretation of Fabian doctrine it may be well to take this opportunity of refuting the error.
He says that Fabianism advocates the socialisation of rent, and in confirmation quotes Shaw's words ”rent _and interest_”! That makes all the difference. If the term rent is widened to include all differential unearned incomes, from land, from ability, from opportunity (i.e.
special profits), interest includes all non-differential unearned incomes, and thus the State is to be endowed, not with rents alone, but with all unearned incomes.[52] It is true that the Fabians, throwing over Marx's inaccurate term ”surplus value,” base their Socialism on the Law of Rent, because, as they allege, this law negatives both equality of income and earnings in proportion to labour, so long as private owners.h.i.+p of land prevails. It is also true that they have directed special attention to the unearned incomes of the ”idle” landlord and shareholder, because these are the typical feature of the modern system of distribution, which indeed has come to the front since the time of Marx, and because they furnish the answer to those who contend that wealth is at present distributed approximately in accordance with personal capacity or merit, and tacitly a.s.sume that ”the rich” are all of them great captains of industry who by enterprise and ability have actually created their vast fortunes.[53] Indeed we might say that we do not mind conceding to our opponents all the wealth ”created” by superior brains, if they will let us deal with the unearned incomes which are received independent of the possession of any brains, or any services at all!
But although we regard the case of the capitalist employer as relatively negligible, and although we prefer to concentrate our attack on the least defensible side of the capitalist system--and already the State recognises that unearned incomes should pay a larger proportion in income-tax, that property which pa.s.ses at death, necessarily to those who have not earned it, should contribute a large quota to the public purse, and that unearned increment on land should in part belong to the public--that does not mean that we have any tenderness for the entrepreneur. Him we propose to deal with by the favourite Fabian method of munic.i.p.alisation and nationalisation. We take over his ”enterprise,”
his gasworks and waterworks, his docks and trams, his railways and mines. We secure for the State the profits of management and the future unearned increment, and we compensate him for his capital with interest-bearing securities. We force him in fact to become the idle recipient of unearned income, and then we turn round and upbraid him and tax him heavily precisely because his income is unearned! If there is any special tenderness in this treatment, I should prefer harshness. To me it seems to resemble the policy of the wolf towards the lamb.[54]
I will proceed with quotations from Mr. Barker, because the view of a historian of thought is weightier than anything I could say.
”But collectivism also demands in the second place expert government. It demands the 'aristocracy of talent' of which Carlyle wrote. The control of a State with powers so vast will obviously need an exceptional and exceptionally large aristocracy. Those opponents of Fabianism who desire something more revolutionary than its political 'meliorism' and 'palliatives' accuse it of alliance with bureaucracy. They urge that it relies on bureaucracy to administer social reforms from above; and they conclude that, since any governing _cla.s.s_ is anti-democratic, the Fabians who believe in such a cla.s.s are really anti-democratic. The charge seems, as a matter of fact, difficult to sustain. Fabians from the first felt and urged that the decentralisation of the State was a necessary condition of the realisation of their aim. The munic.i.p.ality and other local units were the natural bodies for administering the new funds and discharging the new duties which the realisation of that aim would create. 'A democratic State,' Shaw wrote, 'cannot become a Social Democratic State unless it has in every centre of population a local governing body as thoroughly democratic in its const.i.tution as the central Parliament.' The House of Commons he felt must develop 'into the central government which will be the organ of federating the munic.i.p.alities.' Fabianism thus implied no central bureaucracy; what it demanded was partly, indeed, a more efficient and expert central government (and there is plenty of room for that), but primarily an expert local civil service in close touch with and under the control of a really democratic munic.i.p.al government. It is difficult to say that this is bureaucracy or that it is not desirable. Many men who are not Fabians or Socialists of any kind feel strongly that the breathing of more vigour and interest into local politics, and the creation of a proper local civil service, are the great problems of the future.
”The policy of Fabianism has thus been somewhat as follows. An intellectual circle has sought to permeate all cla.s.ses, from the top to the bottom, with a common opinion in favour of social control of socially created values. Resolved to permeate all cla.s.ses, it has not preached cla.s.s-consciousness; it has worked as much with and through Liberal 'capitalists' as with and through Labour representatives.
Resolved gradually to permeate, it has not been revolutionary: it has relied on the slow growth of opinion. Reformist rather than revolutionary, it has explained the impossibility of the sudden 'revolution' of the working cla.s.ses against capital: it has urged the necessity of a gradual amelioration of social conditions by a gradual a.s.sertion of social control over unearned increment.[55] Hence Fabianism has not adopted the somewhat cold att.i.tude of the pure Socialist Party to Trade Unions, but has rather found in their gradual conquest of better wages and better conditions for the workers the line of social advance congenial with its own principles. Again, it has preached that the society which is to exert control must be democratic, if the control is to be, as it must be, self-control: it has taught that such democratic self-control must primarily be exerted in democratic local self-government: it has emphasised the need of reconciling democratic control with expert guidance. While it has never advocated 'direct action' or the avoidance of political activity, while on the contrary, it has advocated the conquest of social reforms on the fields of parliamentary and munic.i.p.al government, it has not defended the State as it is, but has rather urged the need for a State which is based on democracy tempered by respect for the 'expert.' In this way Socialism of the Fabian type has made representative democracy its creed. It has adopted the sound position that democracy flourishes in that form of state in which people freely produce, thanks to an equality of educational opportunity, and freely choose, thanks to a wide and active suffrage, their own members for their guidance, and, since they have freely produced and chosen them, give them freely and fully the honour of their trust. And thus Socialists like Mr. Sidney Webb and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald have not coquetted with primary democracy, which has always had a magnetic attraction for Socialists. The doctrine that the people itself governs directly through obedient agents--the doctrine of mandate and plebiscite, of referendum and initiative--is not the doctrine of the best English Socialism.” Mr. Barker next explains that behind these ideas lies ”an organic theory of society,” that society is regarded as ”an organic unity with a real 'general will' of its own,” and after stating that ”the development of Liberalism, during the last few years, shows considerable traces of Fabian influence,” concludes the subject with the words ”Collectivism of the Fabian order was the dominant form of Socialism in England till within the last three of four years.” Of the movement of Guild Socialists and others which he deems to have replaced it I shall speak later.
I have ventured to quote from Mr. Barker at some length because his summary of Fabian doctrine seems to me (with the exception noted) to be both correct and excellent, and it is safer to borrow from a writer quite unconnected with the Society an estimate of its place in the history of English political thought, rather than to offer my own necessarily prejudiced opinion of its achievements.
But I must revert again to the Fabian ”method.” ”Make Socialists,” said Mr. Wells in ”Faults of the Fabian,” ”and you will achieve Socialism.
There is no other way”; and Mr. Wells in his enthusiasm antic.i.p.ated a society of ten thousand Fabians as the result of a year's propaganda.
Will Socialism come through the making of Socialists?
<script>