{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_17416/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_17416","id":"gutenberg_17416","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17416","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Economics","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Communism","Socialism"],"text":"E-text prepared cy Bryan Ness, Paul Ereaut, and the Project Gutenberg\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net/)\n\n\n\nA CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF SOCIALISM\n\nby\n\nW.H. MALLOCK\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLondon\nJohn Murray, Albemarle Street, W.\n1908\nPrinted by\nHazell, Watson and Viney, Ld.,\nLondon and Aylesbury.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe Civic Federation of New York, an influential body which aims, in\nvarious ways, at harmonising apparently divergent industrial interests\nin America, having decided on supplementing its other activities by a\ncampaign of political and economic education, invited me, at the\nbeginning of the year 1907, to initiate a scientific discussion of\nsocialism in a series of lectures or speeches, to be delivered under the\nauspices of certain of the great Universities in the United States. This\ninvitation I accepted, but, the project being a new one, some difficulty\narose as to the manner in which it might best be carried out--whether\nthe speeches or lectures should in each case be new, dealing with some\nfresh aspect of the subject, or whether they should be arranged in a\nsingle series to be repeated without substantial alteration in each of\nthe cities visited by me. The latter plan was ultimately adopted, as\ntending to render the discussion of the subject more generally\ncomprehensible to each local audience. A series of five lectures,\nsubstantially the same, was accordingly delivered by me in New York,\nCambridge, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. But whilst this plan\nsecured continuity of treatment, it secured it at the expense of\ncomprehensiveness. Certain important points had to be passed over. In\nthe present volume the substance of the original lectures has been\nentirely rearranged and rewritten, and more than half the matter is new.\nEven in the present volume, however, it has been impossible to treat the\nsubject otherwise than in a general way. At almost every point a really\ncomplete discussion would necessitate a much fuller analysis of facts\nthan it has been practicable to give here. Arguments here necessarily\nconfined to a few pages or to a chapter, would each, for their complete\nelucidation, require a separate monograph. Most readers, however, will\nbe able to supply much of what is missing, by the light of their own\ncommon sense; and general arguments, in which, as in block plans of\nbuildings, many details are suppressed, have for practical purposes the\ngreat advantage of being generally and easily intelligible, whereas, if\nstated in fuller and more complex form, they might confuse rather than\nenlighten a large number of readers.\n\nThe fact that the fundamental arguments of this volume were\ndisseminated throughout the United States, not only at the meetings\naddressed, but also in all the leading newspapers, has had the valuable\nresult, by means of the mass of criticisms which they elicited, of\nillustrating the manner in which socialists attempt to meet them; and\nhas enabled me to revise, with a view to farther clearness, certain\npassages which were intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood, and\nalso to emphasise the curious confusions of thought into which various\ncritics have been driven in their efforts to controvert or get round\nthem. I may specially mention a small volume by Mr. G. Wilshire of New\nYork--a leading publisher and disseminator of socialistic\nliterature--which was devoted to examining my own arguments seriatim. To\nthe principal criticisms of this writer allusions will be found in the\nfollowing pages. Most of my socialistic opponents (though to this rule\nthere were amusing exceptions) wrote, according to their varying degrees\nof intelligence and education, with remarkable candour, and also with\ngreat courtesy. Mr. Wilshire, in particular, whilst seeking to refute my\narguments as a whole, admitted the force of many of them; and did his\nbest, in his elaborate _resume_ of them, to state them all fairly.\n\nThe contentions, and even the phraseology of socialists are in all\ncountries (with the possible exception of Russia) identical. All are\nvitiated by the same distinctive errors, and it is indifferent whether,\nfor purposes of detail criticism, we go to speakers and writers in this\ncountry or America. Except for the correction of a few verbal errors\nwhich have escaped my notice in the American edition, and which obscure\nthe meaning of perhaps four or five sentences, for the introduction of a\nfew additional notes, and for the translation of dollars and cents into\npounds and shillings, the English and the American editions are the\nsame.\n\nW. H. M.\n\n_January, 1908._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n        CHAPTER I\n\n        THE HISTORICAL BEGINNING OF SOCIALISM AS AN OSTENSIBLY\n        SCIENTIFIC THEORY\n\n        Socialism an unrealised theory. In order to discuss it, it must\n        be defined.\n\n        Being of no general interest except as a nucleus of some general\n        movement, we must identify it as a theory which has united large\n        numbers of men in a common demand for change.\n\n        As the definite theoretical nucleus of a party or movement,\n        socialism dates from the middle of the nineteenth century, when\n        it was erected into a formal system by Karl Marx.\n\n        We must begin our examination of it by taking it in this, its\n        earliest, systematic form.\n\n\n        CHAPTER II\n\n        THE THEORY OF MARX AND THE EARLIER SOCIALISTS SUMMARISED\n\n        The doctrine of Marx that all wealth is produced by labour.\n\n        His recognition that the possibilities of distribution rest on\n        the facts of production.\n\n        His theory of labour as the sole producer of wealth avowedly\n        derived from Ricardo's theory of value.\n\n        His theory of capital as consisting of implements of production,\n        which are embodiments of past labour, and his theory of modern\n        capitalism as representing nothing but a gradual abstraction by\n        a wholly unproductive class, of these implements from the men\n        who made them, and who alone contribute anything to their\n        present productive use.\n\n        His theory that wages could never rise, but must, under\n        capitalism, sink all over the world to the amount which would\n        just keep the labourers from starvation, when, driven by\n        necessity, they will rebel, and, repossessing themselves of\n        their own implements, will be rich forever afterwards by using\n        them for their own benefit.\n\n\n        CHAPTER III\n\n        THE ROOT ERROR OF THE MARXIAN THEORY.\n        ITS OMISSION OF DIRECTIVE ABILITY.\n        ABILITY AND LABOUR DEFINED\n\n        The theory of Marx analysed. It is true as applied to primitive\n        communities, where the amount of wealth produced is very small,\n        but it utterly fails to account for the increased wealth of the\n        modern world.\n\n        Labour, as Marx conceived of it, can indeed increase in\n        productivity in two ways, but to a small degree only, neither of\n        which explains the vast increase of wealth during the past\n        hundred and fifty years.\n\n        The cause of this is the development of a class which, not\n        labouring itself, concentrates exceptional knowledge and energy\n        on the task of directing the labour of others, as an author does\n        when, by means of his manuscript, he directs the labour of\n        compositors.\n\n        Formal definition of the parts played respectively by the\n        faculties of the labouring and those of the directing classes.\n\n\n        CHAPTER IV\n\n        THE ERRORS OF MARX, CONTINUED.\n        CAPITAL AS THE IMPLEMENT OF ABILITY\n\n        Two kinds of human effort being thus involved in modern\n        production, it is necessary for all purposes of intelligible\n        discussion to distinguish them by different names.\n\n        The word \"labour\" being appropriated by common custom to the\n        manual task-work of the majority, some other technical word must\n        be found to designate the directive faculties as applied to\n        productive industry. The word here chosen, in default of a\n        better, is \"ability.\"\n\n        Ability, then, being the faculty which directs labour, by what\n        means does it give effect to its directions?\n\n        It gives effect to its directions by means of its control of\n        capital, in the form of wage-capital.\n\n        Ability, using wage-capital as its implement of direction, gives\n        rise to fixed capital, in the form of the elaborate implements\n        of modern production, which are the material embodiments of the\n        knowledge, ingenuity, and energy of the highest minds.\n\n\n        CHAPTER V\n\n        REPUDIATION OF MARX BY MODERN SOCIALISTS.\n        THEIR RECOGNITION OF DIRECTIVE ABILITY\n\n        The more educated socialists of to-day, when the matter is put\n        plainly before them, admit that the argument of the preceding\n        chapters is correct, and repudiate the doctrine of Marx that\n        \"labour\" is the sole producer.\n\n        Examples of this admission on the part of American socialists.\n\n        The socialism of Marx, however, still remains the socialism of\n        the more ignorant classes, and also of the popular agitator.\n\n        It is, moreover, still used as an instrument of agitation by\n        many who personally repudiate it. The case of Mr. Hillquit.\n\n        The doctrine of Marx, therefore, still requires exposure.\n\n        Further, it is necessary to understand this earlier form of\n        socialistic theory in order to understand the later.\n\n\n        CHAPTER VI\n\n        REPUDIATION OF MARX BY MODERN SOCIALISTS, CONTINUED.\n        THEIR RECOGNITION OF CAPITAL AS THE IMPLEMENT OF DIRECTIVE\n        ABILITY.\n        THEIR NEW POSITION, AND THEIR NEW THEORETICAL DIFFICULTIES\n\n        The more educated socialists of to-day, besides virtually\n        accepting the argument of the preceding chapters with regard to\n        labour, virtually accept the argument set forth in them with\n        regard to capital.\n\n        Mr. Sidney Webb, for example, recognises it as an implement of\n        direction, the only alternative to which is a system of legal\n        coercion.\n\n        Other socialists advocate the continued use of wage-capital as\n        the implement of direction, but they imagine that the situation\n        would be radically changed by making the \"state\" the sole\n        capitalist.\n\n        But the \"state,\" as some of them are beginning to realise, would\n        be merely the private men of ability--the existing\n        employers--turned into state officials, and deprived of most of\n        their present inducements to exert themselves.\n\n        A socialistic state theoretically could always command labour,\n        for labour can be exacted by force; but the exercise of ability\n        must be voluntary, and can only be secured by a system of\n        adequate rewards and inducements.\n\n        Two problems with which modern socialism is confronted: How\n        would it test its able men so as to select the best of them for\n        places of power? What rewards could it offer them which would\n        induce them systematically to develop, and be willing to\n        exercise, their exceptional faculties?\n\n\n        CHAPTER VII\n\n        PROXIMATE DIFFICULTIES.\n        ABLE MEN AS A CORPORATION OF STATE OFFICIALS\n\n        How are the men fittest for posts of industrial power to be\n        selected from the less fit?\n\n        This problem solved automatically by the existing system of\n        private and separate capitals.\n\n        The fusion of all private capitals into a single state capital\n        would make this solution impossible, and would provide no other.\n        The only machinery by which the more efficient directors of\n        labour could be discriminated from the less efficient would be\n        broken. Case of the London County Council's steamboats.\n\n        Two forms which the industrial state under socialism might\n        conceivably take: The official directors of industry might be\n        either an autocratic bureaucracy, or they might else be subject\n        to elected politicians representing the knowledge and opinions\n        prevalent among the majority.\n\n        Estimate of the results which would arise in the former case.\n        Illustrations from actual bureaucratic enterprise.\n\n        Estimate of the results which would arise in the latter case.\n        The state, as representing the average opinion of the masses,\n        brought to bear on scientific industrial enterprise.\n        Illustrations.\n\n        The state as sole printer and publisher. State capitalism would\n        destroy the machinery of industrial progress just as it would\n        destroy the machinery by which thought and knowledge develop.\n\n        But behind the question of whether socialism could provide\n        ability with the conditions or the machinery requisite for its\n        exercise is the question of whether it could provide it with any\n        adequate stimulus.\n\n\n        CHAPTER VIII\n\n        THE ULTIMATE DIFFICULTY.\n        SPECULATIVE ATTEMPTS TO MINIMISE IT\n\n        Mr. Sidney Webb, and most modern socialists of the higher kind,\n        recognise that this problem of motive underlies all others.\n\n        They approach it indirectly by sociological arguments borrowed\n        from other philosophers, and directly by a psychology peculiar\n        to themselves.\n\n        The sociological arguments by which socialists seek to minimise\n        the claims of the able man.\n\n        These founded on a specific confusion of thought, which vitiated\n        the evolutionary sociology of that second half of the nineteenth\n        century. Illustrations from Herbert Spencer, Macaulay, Mr. Kidd,\n        and recent socialists.\n\n        The confusion in question a confusion between speculative truth\n        and practical.\n\n        The individual importance of the able man, untouched by the\n        speculative conclusions of the sociological evolutionists, as\n        may be seen by the examples adduced in a contrary sense by\n        Herbert Spencer. This is partially perceived by Spencer himself.\n        Illustrations from his works.\n\n        Ludicrous attempts, on the part of socialistic writers, to apply\n        the speculative generalisations of sociology to the practical\n        position of individual men.\n\n        The climax of absurdity reached by Mr. Sidney Webb.\n\n\n        CHAPTER IX\n\n        THE ULTIMATE DIFFICULTY, CONTINUED.\n        ABILITY AND INDIVIDUAL MOTIVE\n\n        The individual motives of the able man as dealt with directly by\n        modern socialists.\n\n        They abandon their sociological ineptitudes altogether, and\n        betake themselves to a psychology which they declare to be\n        scientific, but which is based on no analysis of facts, and\n        consists really of loose assumptions and false analogies.\n\n        Their treatment of the motives of the artist, the thinker, the\n        religious enthusiast, and the soldier.\n\n        Their unscientific treatment of the soldier's motive, and their\n        fantastic proposal based on it to transfer this motive from the\n        domain of war to that of industry.\n\n        The socialists as their own critics when they denounce the\n        actual motives of the able man as he is and as they say he\n        always has been. They attack the typically able man of all\n        periods as a monster of congenital selfishness, and it is men of\n        this special type whom they propose to transform suddenly into\n        monsters of self-abnegation.\n\n        Their want of faith in the efficacy of their own moral suasion\n        and their proposal to supplement this by the ballot.\n\n\n        CHAPTER X\n\n        INDIVIDUAL MOTIVE AND DEMOCRACY\n\n        Exaggerated powers ascribed to democracy by inaccurate thinkers.\n\n        An example from an essay by a recent philosophic thinker, with\n        special reference to the rewards of exceptional ability.\n\n        This writer maintains that the money rewards of ability can be\n        determined by the opinion of the majority expressing itself\n        through votes and statutes.\n\n        The writer's typical error. A governing body might enact any\n        laws, but they would not be obeyed unless consonant with human\n        nature.\n\n        Laws are obliged to conform to the propensities of human nature\n        which it is their office to regulate.\n\n        Elaborate but unconscious admission of this fact by the writer\n        here quoted himself.\n\n        The power of democracy in the economic sphere, its magnitude and\n        its limits. The demands of the minority a counterpart of those\n        of the majority.\n\n        The demand of the great wealth-producer mainly a demand for\n        power.\n\n        Testimony of a well-known socialist to the impossibility of\n        altering the character of individual demand by outside\n        influence.\n\n\n        CHAPTER XI\n\n        CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SECULAR DEMOCRACY\n\n        The meaning of Christian socialism, as restated to-day by a\n        typical writer.\n\n        His just criticism of the fallacy underlying modern ideas of\n        democracy. The impossibility of equalising unequal men by\n        political means.\n\n        Christian socialism teaches, he says, that the abler men should\n        make themselves equal to ordinary men by surrendering to them\n        the products of their own ability, or else by abstaining from\n        its exercise.\n\n        The author's ignorance of the nature of the modern industrial\n        process. His idea of steel.\n\n        He confuses the production of wealth on a great scale with the\n        acquisition of wealth when produced.\n\n        The only really productive ability which he distinctly\n        recognises is that of the speculative inventor.\n\n        He declares that inventors never wish to profit personally by\n        their inventions. Let the great capitalists, he says, who merely\n        monopolise inventions, imitate the self-abnegation of the\n        inventors, and Christian socialism will become a fact.\n\n        The confusion which reigns in the minds of sentimentalists like\n        the author here quoted. Their inability to see complex facts and\n        principles, in their connected integrity, as they are. Such\n        persons herein similar to devisers of perpetual motions and\n        systems for defeating the laws of chance at a roulette-table.\n\n        All logical socialistic conclusions drawn from premises in which\n        some vital truth or principle is omitted. Omission in the\n        premises of the earlier socialists. Corresponding omission in\n        the premises of the socialists of to-day.\n\n        Origin of the confusion of thought characteristic of Christian\n        as of all other socialists. Temperamental inability to\n        understand the complexities of economic life. This inability\n        further evidenced by the fact that, with few exceptions,\n        socialists themselves are absolutely incompetent as producers.\n        Certain popular contentions with regard to modern economic life,\n        urged by socialists, but not peculiar to socialism, still remain\n        to be considered in the following chapters.\n\n\n        CHAPTER XII\n\n        THE JUST REWARD OF LABOUR AS ESTIMATED BY ITS ACTUAL PRODUCTS\n\n        Modern socialists admit that of the wealth produced to-day\n        labour does not produce the whole, but that some part is\n        produced by directive ability. But they contend that labour\n        produces more than it gets. We can only ascertain if such an\n        assertion is correct by discovering how to estimate with some\n        precision the amount produced by labour and ability\n        respectively.\n\n        But since for the production of the total product labour and\n        ability are both alike necessary, how can we say that any\n        special proportion of it is produced by one or the other?\n\n        J.S. Mill's answer to this question.\n\n        The profound error of Mill's argument.\n\n        Practically so much of any effect is due to any one of its\n        causes as would be absent from this effect were the cause in\n        question taken away. Illustrations.\n\n        Labour itself produces as much as it would produce were there no\n        ability to direct it.\n\n        The argument which might be drawn from the case of a community\n        in which there was no labour.\n\n        Such an argument illusory; for a community in which there was no\n        labour would be impossible; but the paralysis of ability, or its\n        practical non-existence possible.\n\n        Practical reasoning of all kinds always confines itself to the\n        contemplation of possibilities. Illustrations.\n\n        Restatement of proposition as to the amount of the product of\n        labour.\n\n        The product of ability only partially described by assimilating\n        it to rent.\n\n        Ability produces everything which would not be produced if its\n        operation were hampered or suspended.\n\n        Increased reward of labour in Great Britain since the year 1800.\n        The reward now received by labour far in excess of what labour\n        itself produces.\n\n        In capitalistic countries generally labour gets, not less, but\n        far more than its due, if its due is to be measured by its own\n        products.\n\n        It is necessary to remember this; but its due is not to be\n        measured exclusively by its own products.\n\n        As will be seen in the concluding chapter.\n\n\n        CHAPTER XIII\n\n        INTEREST AND ABSTRACT JUSTICE\n\n        The proposal to confiscate interest for the public benefit, on\n        the ground that it is income unconnected with any corresponding\n        effort.\n\n        Is the proposal practicable? Is it defensible on grounds of\n        abstract justice?\n\n        The abstract moral argument plays a large part in the\n        discussion.\n\n        It assumes that a man has a moral right to what he produces,\n        interest being here contrasted with this, as a something which\n        he does not produce.\n\n        Defects of this argument. It ignores the element of time. Some\n        forms of effort are productive long after the effort itself has\n        ceased.\n\n        For examples, royalties on an acted play. Such royalties herein\n        typical of interest generally.\n\n        Industrial interest as a product of the forces of organic\n        nature. Henry George's defence of interest as having this\n        origin.\n\n        His argument true, but imperfect. His superficial criticism of\n        Bastiat.\n\n        Nature works through machine-capital just as truly as it does in\n        agriculture.\n\n        Machines are natural forces captured by men of genius, and set\n        to work for the benefit of human beings.\n\n        Interest on machine-capital is part of an extra product which\n        nature is made to yield by those men who are exceptionally\n        capable of controlling her.\n\n        By capturing natural forces, one man of genius may add more to\n        the wealth of the world in a year than an ordinary man could add\n        to it in a hundred lifetimes.\n\n        The claim of any such man on the products of his genius is\n        limited by a variety of circumstances; but, as a mere matter of\n        abstract justice, the whole of it belongs to him.\n\n        Abstract justice, however, in a case like this, gives us no\n        practical guidance, until we interpret it in connection with\n        concrete facts, and translate the just into terms of the\n        practicable.\n\n\n        CHAPTER XIV\n\n        THE SOCIALISTIC ATTACK ON INTEREST AND THE NATURE OF ITS SEVERAL\n        ERRORS\n\n        The practical outcome of the moral attack on interest is\n        logically an attack on bequest.\n\n        Modern socialism would logically allow a man to inherit\n        accumulations, and to spend the principal, but not to receive\n        interest on his money as an investment.\n\n        What would be the result if all who inherited capital spent it\n        as income, instead of living on the interest of it?\n\n        Two typical illustrations of these ways of treating capital.\n\n        The ultimate difference between the two results.\n\n        What the treatment of capital as income would mean, if the\n        practice were made universal. It would mean the gradual loss of\n        all the added productive forces with which individual genius has\n        enriched the world.\n\n        Practical condemnation of proposed attack on interest.\n\n        Another aspect of the matter.\n\n        Those who attack interest, as distinct from other kinds of\n        money-reward, admit that the possession of wealth is necessary\n        as a stimulus to production.\n\n        But the possession of wealth is desired mainly for its social\n        results far more than for its purely individual results.\n\n        Interest as connected with the sustentation of a certain mode of\n        social life.\n\n        Further consideration of the manner in which those who attack\n        interest ignore the element of time, and contemplate the present\n        moment only.\n\n        The economic functions of a class which is not, at a given\n        moment, economically productive.\n\n        Systematic failure of those who attack interest to consider\n        society as a whole, continually emerging from the past, and\n        dependent for its various energies on the prospects of the\n        future.\n\n        Consequent futility of the general attack on interest, though\n        interest in certain cases may be justly subjected to special but\n        not exaggerated burdens.\n\n\n        CHAPTER XV\n\n        EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY\n\n        Equality of opportunity, as an abstract demand, is in an\n        abstract sense just; but it changes its character when applied\n        to a world of unequal individuals.\n\n        Equality of opportunity in the human race-course. To multiply\n        competitors is to multiply failures.\n\n        Educational opportunity. Unequal students soon make\n        opportunities unequal.\n\n        Opportunity in industrial life. Socialistic promises of equal\n        industrial opportunities for all. Each \"to paddle his own\n        canoe.\"\n\n        These absurd promises inconsistent with the arguments of\n        socialists themselves.\n\n        A socialist's attempt to defend these promises by reference to\n        employes of the state post-office.\n\n        Equality of industrial opportunity for those who believe\n        themselves possessed of exceptional talent and aspire \"to rise.\"\n\n        Opportunities for such men involve costly experiment, and are\n        necessarily limited.\n\n        Claimants who would waste them indefinitely more numerous than\n        those who could use them profitably.\n\n        Such opportunities mean the granting to one man the control of\n        other men by means of wage-capital.\n\n        Disastrous effects of granting such opportunities to all or even\n        most of those who would believe themselves entitled to them.\n\n        True remedy for the difficulties besetting the problem of\n        opportunity.\n\n        Ruskin on human demands. Needs and \"romantic wishes.\" The former\n        not largely alterable. The latter depend mainly on education.\n\n        The problem practically soluble by a wise moral education only,\n        which will correlate demand and expectation with the personal\n        capacities of the individual.\n\n        Relative equality of opportunity, not absolute equality, the\n        true formula.\n\n        Equality of opportunity, though much talked about by socialists,\n        is essentially a formula of competition, and opposed to the\n        principles of socialism.\n\n\n        CHAPTER XVI\n\n        THE SOCIAL POLICY OF THE FUTURE\n\n        THE MORAL OF THIS BOOK\n\n        This book, though consisting of negative criticism and analysis\n        of facts, and not trenching on the domain of practical policy\n        and constructive suggestion, aims at facilitating a rational\n        social policy by placing in their true perspective the main\n        statical facts and dynamic forces of the modern economic world,\n        which socialism merely confuses.\n\n        In pointing out the limitations of labour as a productive\n        agency, and the dependence of the labourers on a class other\n        than their own, it does not seek to represent the aspirations of\n        the former to participate in the benefits of progress as\n        illusory, but rather to place such aspirations on a scientific\n        basis, and so to remove what is at present the principal\n        obstacle that stands in the way of a rational and scientific\n        social policy.\n\n\n\n\nA CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF SOCIALISM\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE HISTORICAL BEGINNING OF SOCIALISM AS AN OSTENSIBLY SCIENTIFIC THEORY\n\n\nSocialism, whatever may be its more exact definition, stands for an\norganisation of society, and more especially for an economic\norganisation, radically opposed to, and differing from, the organisation\nwhich prevails to-day. So much we may take for granted; but here, before\ngoing further, it is necessary to free ourselves from a very common\nconfusion. When socialism, as thus defined, is spoken of as a thing that\nexists--as a thing that has risen and is spreading--two ideas are apt to\nsuggest themselves to the minds of all parties equally, of which one\ncoincides with facts, while the other does not, having, indeed, thus far\nat all events, no appreciable connection with them; and it is necessary\nto get rid of the false idea, and concern ourselves only with the true.\n\nThe best way in which I can make my meaning clear will be by referring\nto a point with regard to which the earlier socialistic thinkers may be\nfairly regarded as accurate and original critics. The so-called orthodox\neconomists of the school of Mill and Ricardo accepted the capitalistic\nsystem as part of the order of nature, and their object was mainly to\nanalyse the peculiar operations incident to it. The abler among the\nsocialists were foremost in pointing out, on the contrary, a fact which\nnow would not be denied by anybody: that capitalism in its present form\nis a comparatively modern phenomenon, owing its origin historically to\nthe dissolution of the feudal system, and not having entered on its\nadolescence, or even on its independent childhood, till a time which may\nbe roughly indicated as the middle of the eighteenth century. The\nimmediate causes of its then accelerated development were, as the\nsocialists insist, the rapid invention of new kinds of machinery, and\nmore especially that of steam as a motor power, which together\ninaugurated a revolution in the methods of production generally.\nProduction on a small scale gave way to production on a large. The\nindependent weavers, for example, each with his own loom, were wholly\nunable to compete with the mechanisms of the new factory; their looms,\nby being superseded, were virtually taken away from them; and these men,\nformerly their own masters, working with their own implements, and\nliving by the sale of their own individual products, were compelled to\npass under the sway of a novel class, the capitalists; to work with\nimplements owned by the capitalists, not themselves; and to live by the\nwages of their labour, not by their sale of the products of it.\n\nSuch, as the socialists insist, was the rise of the capitalistic system;\nand when once it had been adequately organised, as it first was, in\nEngland, it proceeded, they go on to observe, to spread itself with\nastonishing rapidity, all other methods disappearing before it, through\ntheir own comparative inefficiency. But when socialists or their\nopponents turn from capitalism to socialism, and speak of how socialism\nhas risen and spread likewise, their language, as thus applied, has no\nmeaning whatever unless it is interpreted in a totally new sense. For in\nthe sense in which socialists speak of the rise and spread of\ncapitalism, socialism has, up to the present time, if we except a number\nof small and unsuccessful experiments, never risen or spread or had any\nexistence at all. Capitalism rose and spread as an actual working\nsystem, which multiplied and improved the material appliances of life in\na manner beyond the reach of the older system displaced by it. It\nrealised results of which previously mankind had hardly dreamed.\nSocialism, on the other hand, has risen and spread thus far, not as a\nsystem which is threatening to supersede capitalism by its actual\nsuccess as an alternative system of production, but merely as a theory\nor belief that such an alternative is possible. Let us take any country\nor any city we please--for example, let us say Chicago, in which\nsocialism is said to be achieving its most hopeful or most formidable\ntriumphs--and we shall look in vain for a sign that the general\nproductive process has been modified by socialistic principles in any\nparticular whatsoever. Socialism has produced resolutions at endless\npublic meetings; it has produced discontent and strikes; it has hampered\nproduction constantly. But socialism has never inaugurated an improved\nchemical process; it has never bridged an estuary or built an ocean\nliner; it has never produced or cheapened so much as a lamp or a\nfrying-pan. It is a theory that such things could be accomplished by the\npractical application of its principles; but, except for the abortive\nexperiments to which I have referred already, it is thus far a theory\nonly, and it is as a theory only that we can examine it.\n\nWhat, then, as a theory, are the distinctive features of socialism? Here\nis a question which, if we address it indiscriminately to all the types\nof people who now call themselves socialists, seems daily more\nimpossible to answer; for every day the number of those is increasing\nwho claim for their own opinions the title of socialistic, but whose\nquarrel with the existing system is very far from apparent, while less\napparent still is the manner in which they propose to alter it. The\npersons to whom I refer consist mainly of academic students, professors,\nclergymen, and also of emotional ladies, who enjoy the attention of\nfootmen in faultless liveries, and say their prayers out of\nprayer-books with jewelled clasps. All these persons unite in the\ngeneral assertion that, whatever may be amiss with the world, the\ncapitalistic system is responsible for it, and that somehow or other\nthis system ought to be altered. But when we ask them to specify the\ndetails as to which alteration is necessary--what precisely are the\nparts of it which they wish to abolish and what, if these were\nabolished, they would introduce as a substitute--one of them says one\nthing, another of them says another, and nobody says anything on which\nthree of them could act in concert.\n\nNow, if socialism were confined to such persons as these, who are in\nAmerica spoken of as the \"parlour socialists,\" it would not only be\nimpossible to tell what socialism actually was, but what it was or was\nnot would be immaterial to any practical man. As a matter of fact,\nhowever, between socialism of this negligible kind--this sheet-lightning\nof sentiment reflected from a storm elsewhere--and the socialism which\nis really a factor to be reckoned with in the life of nations, we can\nstart with drawing a line which, when once drawn, is unmistakable.\nSocialism being avowedly a theory which, in the first instance at all\nevents, addresses itself to the many as distinct from and opposed to the\nfew, it is only or mainly the fact of its adoption by the many which\nthreatens to render it a practical force in politics. Its practical\nimportance accordingly depends upon two things--firstly, on its\npossessing a form sufficiently definite to unite what would otherwise be\na mass of heterogeneous units, by developing in all of them a common\ntemper and purpose; and, secondly, on the number of those who can be\ntaught to adopt and welcome it. The theory of socialism is, therefore,\nas a practical force, primarily that form of it which is operative among\nthe mass of socialists; and when once we realise this, we shall have no\nfurther difficulty in discovering what the doctrines are with which, at\nall events, we must begin our examination. We are guided to our\nstarting-point by the broad facts of history.\n\nThe rights of the many as opposed to the actual position of the few--a\nsociety in which all should be equal, not only in political status, but\nalso in social circumstances; ideas such as these are as old as the days\nof Plato, and they have, from time to time in the ancient and the modern\nworld, resulted in isolated and abortive attempts to realise them. In\nEurope such ideas were rife during the sixty or seventy years which\nfollowed the great political revolution in France. Schemes of society\nwere formulated which were to carry this revolution further, and\nconcentrate effort on industrial rather than political change. Pictures\nwere presented to the imagination, and the world was invited to realise\nthem, of societies in which all were workers on equal terms, and groups\nof fraternal citizens, separated no longer by the egoisms of the private\nhome, dwelt together in palaces called \"phalansteries,\" which appear to\nhave been imaginary anticipations of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Here\nlapped in luxury, they were to feast at common tables; and between meals\nthe men were to work in the fields singing, while a lady accompanied\ntheir voices on a grand piano under a hedge. These pictures, however,\nagreeable as they were to the fancy, failed to produce any great effect\non the multitudes; for the multitudes felt instinctively that they were\ntoo good to be true. That such was the case is admitted by socialistic\nhistorians themselves. Socialism during this period was, they say, in\nits \"Utopian stage.\" It was not even sufficiently coherent to have\nacquired a distinctive name till the word \"socialism\" was coined in\nconnection with the views of Owen, which suffered discredit from the\nfailure of his attempts to put them into practice. Socialism in those\ndays was a dream, but it was not science; and in a world which was\nrapidly coming to look upon science as supreme, nothing could convince\nmen generally--not even the most ignorant--which had not, or was not\nsupposed to have, the authority of science at the back of it.\n\nSuch being the situation, as the socialists accurately describe it, an\neminent thinker arose who at last supplied what was wanting. He provided\nthe unorganised aspirations, which by this time were known as socialism,\nwith a formula which was at once definite, intelligible, and\ncomprehensive, and had all the air of being rigidly scientific also. By\nthis means thoughts and feelings, previously vague and fluid, like salts\nheld in solution, were crystallised into a clear-cut theory which was\nabsolutely the same for all; which all who accepted it could accept with\nthe same intellectual confidence; and which thus became a moral and\nmental nucleus around which the efforts and hopes of a coherent party\ncould group themselves.\n\nSuch was the feat accomplished by Karl Marx, through his celebrated\ntreatise on Capital, which was published between fifty and sixty years\nago, and which has, since then, throughout all Europe and America, been\nacclaimed as the Magna Charta, or the Bible, of \"scientific socialism.\"\n\nWhatever may be the change which, as a theory, socialism has\nsubsequently undergone--and changes there have been which will presently\noccupy our attention--it is with the theory of Marx, and the temper of\nmind resulting from it, that socialism, regarded as a practical force,\nbegins; and among the majority of socialists this theory is predominant\nstill. In view, therefore, of the requirements of logic, of history, and\nof contemporary facts, our own examination must begin with the theory of\nMarx likewise.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE THEORY OF MARX AND THE EARLIER SOCIALISTS SUMMARISED\n\n\nAll radical revolutions which are advocated in the interests of the\npeople are commended to the people, and the people are invited to\naccomplish them, on the ground that majorities are, if they would only\nrealise it, capable of moulding society in any manner they please. As\napplied to matters of legislation and government, this theory is\nsufficiently familiar to everybody. It has been elaborated in endless\ndetail, and has expressed itself in the constitutions of all modern\ndemocracies. What Karl Marx did, and did for the first time, was to\ninvest this theory of the all-efficiency of the majority with a\ndefiniteness, in respect of distribution of wealth, similar to that with\nwhich it had been invested already in respect of the making of laws and\nthe dictation of national policies.\n\nThe practical outcome of the scientific reasoning of Marx is summed up\nin the formula which has figured as the premise and conclusion of every\ncongress of his followers, of every book or manifesto published by\nthem, and of every propagandist oration uttered by them at\nstreet-corners, namely, \"All wealth is produced by labour, therefore to\nthe labourers all wealth is due\"--a doctrine in itself not novel if\ntaken as a pious generality, but presented by Marx as the outcome of an\nelaborate system of economics.\n\nThe efficiency of this doctrine as an instrument of agitation is\nobvious. It appeals at once to two universal instincts: the instinct of\ncupidity and the instinct of universal justice. It stimulates the\nlabourers to demand more than they receive already, and it stimulates to\ndemand the more on the ground that they themselves have produced it. It\nteaches them that the wealth of every man who is not a manual labourer\nis something stolen from themselves which ought to be and which can be\nrestored to them.\n\nNow, whatever may be the value of such teaching as a contribution to\neconomic science, it illustrates by its success one cardinal truth, and\nby implication it bears witness to another. The first truth is that, no\nmatter how desirable any object may be which is obtruded on the\nimagination of anybody, nobody will bestir himself in a practical way to\ndemand it until he can be persuaded to believe that its attainment is\npractically possible. The other is this: that the possibilities of\nredistributing wealth depend on the causes by which wealth is produced.\nAll wealth, says Marx, can practically be appropriated by the\nlabourers. But why? Because the labourers themselves comprise in their\nown labour all the forces that produce it. If its production\nnecessitated the activity of any persons other than themselves, these\nother persons would inevitably have some control over its distribution;\nsince if it were distributed in a manner of which these other persons\ndisapproved, it would be open to them to refuse to take part in its\nproduction any longer; and there would, in consequence, be no wealth, or\nless wealth, to distribute.\n\nLet us, then, examine the precise sense and manner in which this theory\nof labour as the sole producer of wealth is elaborated and defended by\nMarx in his Bible of Scientific Socialism. His argument, though the\nexpression of it is very often pedantic and encumbered with superfluous\nmathematical formulae, is ingenious and interesting, and is associated\nwith historical criticism which, in spite of its defects, is valuable.\nMarx was, indeed, foremost among those thinkers already referred to who\nfirst insisted on the fact that the economic conditions of to-day are\nmainly a novel development of others which went before them, and that,\nhaving their roots in history, they must be studied by the historical\nmethod. He recognised, however, that for practical purposes each age\nmust concern itself with its own environment; and his logical\nstarting-point is an analysis of wealth-production as it exists to-day.\nHe begins by insisting on the fact that labour in the modern world is\ndivided with such a general and such an increasing minuteness that each\nlabour produces one kind of product only, of which he himself can\nconsume but a small fraction, and often consumes nothing. His own\nproduct, therefore, has for him the character of wealth only because he\nis able to exchange it for commodities of other kinds; and the amount of\nwealth represented by it depends upon what the quantity of other\nassorted commodities, which he can get in exchange for it, is. What,\nthen, is the common measure, in accordance with which, as a fact, one\nkind of commodity will exchange for any other, or any others? For his\nanswer to this question Marx goes to the orthodox economists of his\ntime--the recognised exponents of the system against which his own\narguments were directed--and notably, among these, to Ricardo; and,\nadopting Ricardo's conclusions, as though they were axiomatic, he\nasserts that the measure of exchange between one class of commodities\nand another--such, for example, as cigars, printed books, and\nchronometers--is the amount of manual labour, estimated in terms of\ntime, which is on an average necessary to the production of each of\nthem. His meaning in this respect is illustrated with pictorial\nvividness by his teaching with regard to the form in which the measure\nof exchange should embody itself. This, he said, ought not to be gold or\nsilver, but \"labour-certificates,\" which would indicate that whoever\npossessed them had laboured for so many hours in producing no matter\nwhat, and which would purchase anything else, or any quantity of\nanything else, representing an equal expenditure of labour of any other\nkind.\n\nHaving thus settled, as it seemed to him beyond dispute, that manual\nlabour, estimated in terms of time, is the sole source and measure of\neconomic values or of wealth, Marx goes on to point out that, by the\nimprovement of industrial methods, labour in the modern world has been\ngrowing more and more productive, so that each labour-hour results in an\nincreased yield of commodities. Thus a man who a couple of centuries ago\ncould have only just kept himself alive by the products of his entire\nlabour-day, can now keep himself alive by the products of half or a\nquarter of it. The products of the remainder of his labour-day are what\nMarx called a \"surplus value,\" meaning by this phrase all that output of\nwealth which is beyond what is practically necessary to keep the\nlabourer alive. But what, he asks, becomes of this surplus? Does it go\nto the labourers who have produced it? No, he replies. On the contrary,\nas fast as it is produced, it is abstracted from the labourer in a\nmanner, which he goes on to analyse, by the capitalist.\n\nMarx here advances to the second stage of his argument. Capital, as he\nconceives of it, is the tools or instruments of production; and modern\ncapital for him means those vast aggregates of machinery by the use of\nwhich in most industries the earlier implements have been displaced.\nNow, here, says Marx, the capitalist is sure to interpose with the\nobjection that the increased output of wealth is due, not to labour, but\nto the machinery, and that the labourer, as such, has consequently no\nclaim on it. But to this objection Marx is ready with the following\nanswer--that the machinery itself is nothing but past labour in\ndisguise. It is past labour crystallised, or embodied in an external\nform, and used by present labour to assist itself in its own operations.\nEvery wheel, crank, and connecting-rod, every rivet in every boiler,\nowes its shape and its place to labour, and labour only. Labour,\ntherefore--the labour of the average multitude--remains the sole agent\nin the production of wealth, after all.\n\nCapital, however, as thus understood, has, he says, this\npeculiarity--that, being labour in an externalised and also in a\npermanent form, it is capable of being detached from the labourers and\nappropriated by other people; and the essence of modern capitalism is\nneither more nor less than this--the appropriation of the instruments of\nproduction by a minority who are not producers. So long as the\nimplements of production were small and simple, and such that each could\nbe used by one man or family, the divorce between the labourer and his\nimplements was not easy to accomplish; but in proportion as these simple\nimplements were developed into the aggregated mechanisms of the factory,\neach of which aggregates was used in common by hundreds and even by\nthousands of labourers, the link between the implement and the user was\nbroken by an automatic process; for a single organised mechanism used by\na thousand men could not, in the nature of things, be owned by each one\nof the thousand individually, and collective ownership by all of them\nwas an idea as yet unborn. Under these circumstances, with the growth of\nmodern machinery, the ownership of the implements of production passed,\nby what Marx looked upon as a kind of historical fatality, into the\nhands of a class whose activities were purely acquisitive, and had no\ntrue connection with the process of production at all; and this class,\nhe said, constitutes the capitalists of the modern world.\n\nThe results of this process have, according to him, been as follows:\nSociety has become divided into two contrasted groups--an enormous\ngroup, and a small one. The enormous group--the great body of every\nnation--the people--the labouring mass--the one true producing\npower--has been left without any implements by means of which its labour\ncan exert itself, and these implements have been monopolised by the\nsmall group alone. The people at large, in fact, have become like the\nemployes of a single mill-owner, who have no choice but to work within\nthe walls of that mill or starve; and the possessing class at large has\nbecome like the owner of such a single mill, who, holding the keys of\nlife and death in his hands, is able to impose on the mill-workers\nalmost any terms he pleases as the price of admission to his premises\nand to the privilege of using his machinery; and the price which such an\nowner, so situated, will exact (such was the contention of Marx)\ninevitably must come, and historically has come, to this--namely, the\nentire amount of goods which the labouring class produces, except such a\nminimum as will just enable its members to keep themselves in working\norder, and to reproduce their kind. Thus all capital, as at present\nowned, all profits, and all interest on capital, are neither more nor\nless than thefts from the labouring class of commodities which are\nproduced by the labouring class alone.\n\nThe argument of Marx is not, however, finished yet. There remains a\nthird part of it which we still have to consider. Writing as he did,\nalmost half a century ago, he said that the process of capitalistic\nappropriation had not--yet completed itself. A remnant of producers on a\nrestricted scale survived, still forming a middle class, which was\nneither rich nor poor. But, he continued, in all capitalistic countries,\na new movement, inevitable from the first, had set in, and its pace was\ndaily accelerating. Just as the earlier capitalists swallowed up most of\nthe small producers, so were the great capitalists swallowing up the\nsmaller, and the middle class which survived was disappearing day by\nday. Wages, meanwhile, were regulated by an iron law. Under the system\nof capitalism it was an absolute impossibility that they could rise. As\nhe put it, in language which has since become proverbial, \"The rich are\ngetting richer, the poor poorer, the middle class is being crushed out,\"\nand the time, he continued, was in sight already--it would arrive,\naccording to him, before the end of the nineteenth century--when nothing\nwould be left but a handful of idle and preposterous millionaires on the\none hand, and a mass of miserable ragamuffins who provided all the\nmillions on the other, having for themselves only enough food and\nclothing to enable them to move their muscles and protect their\nnakedness from the frost. Then, said Marx, when this contrast has\ncompleted itself, the situation will be no longer tolerable. \"Then the\nknell of the capitalistic system will have sounded.\" The producers will\nassert themselves under the pressure of an irresistible impulse; they\nwill repossess themselves of the implements of production of which they\nhave been so long deprived. \"The expropriators will in their turn be\nexpropriated,\" and the labourers thenceforth owning the implements of\nproduction collectively, all the wealth of the world will forever\nafterwards be theirs.\n\nThis concluding portion of the gospel of Marx--its prophecies--has been\nin many of its details so completely falsified by events that even his\nmost ardent disciples no longer insist on it. I have only mentioned it\nhere because of the further light which it throws on what alone, in\nthis discussion, concerns us--namely, the Marxian theory of labour as\nthe sole producer of wealth, and the absolute nullity, so far as\nproduction goes, of every form of activity associated with the\npossession of capital, or with any class but the labouring.\n\nThis theory of production, then, which has been the foundation of\nsocialism as a party--or, as Gronluend, a disciple of Marx, calls it,\n\"its _idee mere_\"--and which is still its foundation for the great\nmajority of socialists, we will now examine in detail, and, considering\nhow complex are the processes of production in the modern world, ask how\nfar it gives us, or fails to give us, even an approximately complete\naccount of them.\n\nWe shall find that, in spite of the plausibility with which the talent\nof Marx invested it, this basic doctrine of so-called scientific\nsocialism is the greatest intellectual mare's-nest of the century which\nhas just ended; and when once we have realised with precision on what,\nin the modern world, the actual efficiency of the productive process\ndepends, we shall see that the analysis of Marx bears about the same\nrelation to the economic facts of to-day that the child's analysis of\nmatter into the four traditional elements, or the doctrine of Thales\nthat everything is made of water, bears to the facts of chemistry as\nmodern science has revealed them to us.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE ROOT ERROR OF THE MARXIAN THEORY.\nITS OMISSION OF DIRECTIVE ABILITY.\nABILITY AND LABOUR DEFINED\n\nIn approaching the opinions of another, from whom we are about to\ndiffer, we gain much in clearness if at starting we can find some point\nof agreement with him. In the case of Marx we can find this without\ndifficulty, for the first observation which our subject will naturally\nsuggest to us is an admission that, within limits, his theory of\nproduction is true. Whatever may be the agencies which are required to\nproduce wealth, human effort is one of them; and into whatever kinds\nthis necessary agency may divide itself, one kind must always be labour,\nin the sense in which Marx understood it--in other words, that use of\nthe hands and muscles by which the majority of mankind have always\ngained their livelihood.\n\nIt is, moreover, easy to point out actual cases in which all the wealth\nthat is produced is produced by labour only. The simplest of such cases\nare supplied us by the lowest savages, who manage, by their utmost\nexertions, to provide themselves with the barest necessaries. Such\ncases show that labour, wherever it exists, produces at least a minimum\nof what men require; for if it were not so there would be no men to\nlabour. Such cases show also another thing. The most primitive races\npossess rude implements of some kind, which any pair of hands can\nfashion, just as any pair of hands can use them. These rude implements\nare capital in its embryonic form; and so far as they go, they verify\nthe Marxian theory that capital is nothing but past labour crystallised.\n\nBut we need not, in order to see labour, past and present, operating and\nproducing in a practically unalloyed condition, go to savage or even\nsemi-civilised countries. The same thing may be seen among groups of\npeasant proprietors, which still survive here and there in the remoter\nparts of Europe. These men and their families, by their own unaided\nlabour, produce nearly everything which they eat and wear and use. Mill,\nin his treatise on _Political Economy_, gives us an account of this\ncondition of things, as prevailing among the peasants in certain\ndistricts of Germany. \"They labour early and late,\" he says, quoting\nfrom a German eulogist. \"They plod on from day to day and from year to\nyear, the most untirable of human animals.\" The German writer admires\nthem as men who are their own masters. Mill holds them up as a shining\nand instructive example of the magic effect of ownership in intensifying\nhuman labour. In any case such men are examples of two things--of\nlabour operating as the sole productive agency, and also of such labour\nself-intensified to its utmost pitch. And what does the labour of these\nmen produce? According to the authority from which Mill quotes, it\nproduces just enough to keep them above the level of actual want. Here,\nthen, we have an unexceptionable example of the wealth-producing power\nof labour pure and simple; and if we imagine an entire nation of men\nwho, as their own masters, worked under liked conditions, we should have\nan example of the same thing on a larger and more instructive scale. We\nshould have a whole nation which produced only just enough to keep it\nabove the level of actual bodily want.\n\nAnd now let us turn from production in an imaginary nation such as this,\nand compare it with production at large among the civilised nations of\nto-day. Nobody could insist on the contrast between the efficiency of\nthe two processes more strongly than do the socialists themselves. The\naggregate wealth of the civilised nations to-day is, they say, so\nenormous--it consists of such a multitude of daily renewed goods and\nservices--that luxuries undreamed of by the labourer of earlier times\nmight easily be made as abundant for every household as water. In other\nwords, if we take a million men, admittedly consisting of labourers pure\nand simple in the first place, and the same number of men exerting\nthemselves under modern conditions in the second place, the industrial\nefforts of the second million are, hour for hour, infinitely more\nproductive than the industrial efforts of the first. If, for example, we\ntake the case of England, and compare the product produced per head of\nthe industrial population towards the close of the seventeenth century,\nwith the product produced less than two centuries afterwards, at the\ntime when Marx was writing his work on _Capital_, the later product\nwill, according to the estimate of statisticians, stand to the earlier\nin the proportion of thirty-three to seven.\n\nNow, if we adopt the scientific theory of Marx that labour pure and\nsimple is the sole producer of wealth, and that labour is productive in\nproportion to the hours devoted to it, how has it happened--this is our\ncrucial question--that the amount of labour which produced seven at one\nperiod should produce thirty-three at another? How are we to explain the\npresence of the additional twenty-six?\n\nThe answer of Marx, and of those who reason like him, is that, owing to\nthe development of knowledge, mechanical and chemical especially, and\nthe consequent development of industrial methods and machinery, labour\nas a whole has itself become more productive. But to say this is merely\nbegging the question. To what is this development of knowledge, of\nmethods, and of machinery due? Is it due to such labour as that of the\n\"untirable human animals,\" to which Mill refers as an example of labour\nin its intensest form? In a word, does ordinary labour, or the\nindustrial effort of the majority, contain in itself any principle of\nadvance at all?\n\nWe must, in order to do justice to any theory, consider not only the\npoints on which its exponents lay the greatest stress, but also those\nwhich they recognise as implied in it, or which we may see to be implied\nin it ourselves. And if we consider the theory of Marx in this way, we\nshall see that labour, in the sense in which he understands the word,\ndoes contain principles of advance which are of two distinguishable\nkinds.\n\nOne of these is recognised by Marx himself. Just as, when he says that\nlabour is the sole productive agency, he assumes the gifts of nature,\nwhich provide it with something to work upon, so, when he conceives of\nlabour as the effort of hand and muscle, he assumes a human mind behind\nthese by which hand and muscle are directed. Such being the case, he\nexpressly admits also that mind is in some cases a more efficient\ndirector than in others, and is able to train the hands and muscles of\nthe labourer, so that these acquire the quality which is commonly called\nskill. Ruskin, who asserted, like Marx, that labour is the sole\nproducer, used in this respect a precisely similar argument. He defined\nskill as faculty which exceptional powers of mind impart to the hands of\nthose by whom such powers are possessed, from the bricklayer who, in\nvirtue of mere alertness and patience, can lay in an hour more bricks\nthan his fellows, up to a Raphael, whose hands can paint a Madonna,\nwhile another man's could hardly be trusted to distemper a wall evenly.\n\nNow, in skill, as thus defined, we have doubtless a correct explanation\nof how mere labour--the manual effort of the individual--may produce, in\nthe case of some men, goods whose value is great, and goods, in the case\nof other men, whose value is comparatively small; and since some epochs\nare more fertile in developed skill than others, an equal amount of\nlabour on the part of the same community may produce, in one century,\ngoods of greater aggregate value than it was able to produce in the\ncentury that went before it. But these goods, whose superior value is\ndue to exceptional skill--or, as would commonly be said, to qualities of\nsuperior craftsmanship--though they form some of the most coveted\narticles of the wealth of the modern world, are not typical of it; and\nfrom the point of view of the majority, they are the part of it which is\nleast important. The goods whose value is due to exceptional\ncraftsmanship--such as an illuminated manuscript, for example, or a vase\nby Benvenuto Cellini--are always few in number, and can be possessed by\nthe few only. The distinctive feature of wealth-production in the modern\nworld, on the contrary, is the multiplication of goods relatively to the\nnumber of the producers of them, and the consequent cheapening of each\narticle individually. The skill of the craftsman gives an exceptional\nvalue to the particular articles on which his own hands are engaged. It\ndoes not communicate itself to the labour of the ordinary men around\nhim. The agency which causes the increasing and sustains the increased\noutput of necessaries, comforts, and conveniences in the progressive\nnations of to-day must necessarily be an agency of some kind or other\nwhich raises the productivity of industrial exertion as a whole. Those,\ntherefore, who, in spite of the fact that the productivity of modern\ncommunities has, relatively to their numbers, undergone an increase\nwhich is general, still maintain that the sole productive agency is\nlabour, must seek for an explanation of this increase in some other fact\nthan skill.\n\nAnd without transgressing the limits which the theory of Marx imposes on\nus, such a further fact is very easy to find. Adam Smith opens his\n_Wealth of Nations_ with a discussion of it. The chief cause, he says,\nwhich in all progressive countries increases the productive power of the\nindividual labourer, is not the development among a few of\npotentialities which are above the average, but a more effective\ndevelopment of potentialities common to all, in consequence of labour\nbeing divided, so that each man devotes his life to the doing of some\none thing. Thus if ten ordinary men were to engage in the business of\npin-making, each making every part of every pin for himself, each man\nwould probably complete but one pin in a day. But if each man makes one\npart, and nothing else but that, thus repeating incessantly a single\nseries of motions, each will acquire the knack of working with such\nrapidity that the ten together will make daily, not ten pins, but some\nthousands. Here we have labour divided by its different applications,\nbut not requiring different degrees of capacity. We have the average\nlabour of the average man still. And here we have a fact which, unlike\nthe fact of skill--a thing in its nature confined to the few\nonly--affords a real explanation, up to a certain point, of how ordinary\nlabour as a whole, without ceasing to be ordinary labour, may rise from\na lower to a higher grade of efficiency.\n\nBut such simple divisions of labour as those which are here in question\nfail, for a reason which will be specified in another moment, to carry\nus far in the history of industrial progress. They do but bring us to\nthe starting-point of production as it exists to-day. The efficiency of\nproductive effort has made all its most astounding advances since the\nprecise time at which the _Wealth of Nations_ was written; and these\nadvances we shall find that it is quite impossible to explain merely by\na further division of average and equal labour. Such a further division\nhas no doubt been an element of the process; but it is an explanation\nwhich itself requires explaining. Even in Adam Smith's time two other\nfactors were at work, which have ever since been growing in magnitude\nand importance; and the secret of modern production lies, we shall find,\nin these. I call them two, but fundamentally there is only one, for\nthat which is most obvious, and of which I shall speak first, is\nexplainable only as the direct result of the second. This, the most\nobvious factor, is the modern development of machinery. The other is the\ngrowing application of exceptional mental powers, not to the _manual\nlabour of the men by whom these powers are possessed_, but to the\n_process of directing and co-ordinating the divided labours of others_.\n\nNow, as to machinery, Marx and his followers, as we have seen, maintain\nthat it represents nothing but the average labour of the past; and so\nlong as it exists only in its smaller and simpler forms, the devising\nand constructing of which are not referable to any faculties which we\nare able to distinguish from those of the average labourer, we have\nfurther seen that the theory of Marx holds good. Labour produces alike\nboth the finished goods and its implements. But in proportion as\nmachines or other contrivances, such as vessels, grow in size or\ncomplexity, and embody, as they do in their more modern developments,\ningenuity of the highest and knowledge of the most abstruse kinds, the\nsituation changes; and we are able to identify certain faculties as\nessential to the ultimate result, which affect the work of the\nlabourers, but which do not emanate from themselves. Any three men of\naverage strength and intelligence might make a potter's wheel together,\nor build a small boat together, as they frequently do now, their\nseveral tasks being interchangeable, or assigned to each of them by easy\nmutual agreement. The business of directing labour has not separated\nitself from the actual business of labouring. Each man knows the object\nof what he does, and can co-ordinate that object with the object of what\nis done by his fellows. But when the ultimate result is something so\nvast and complicated that a thousand men instead of three have to\nco-operate in the production of it, when a million pieces of metal, some\nlarge and some minute, have to be cast, filed, turned, rolled, or bent,\nso that finally they may all coalesce into a single mechanical organism,\nno one labourer sees further than the task which he performs himself. He\ncannot adjust his work to that of another man, who is probably working a\nquarter of a mile away from him, and he has in most cases no idea\nwhatever of how the two pieces of work are related to each other. Each\nlabourer has simply to perform his work in accordance with directions\nwhich emanate from some mind other than his own, and the whole practical\nvalue of what the labourers do depends on the quality of the directions\nwhich are thus given to each.\n\nIn other words, in proportion as the industrial process is enhanced in\nproductivity by the concentration on it of the higher faculties of\nmankind, there is an increasing fission of this process as a whole into\ntwo kinds of activity represented by two different groups. We have no\nlonger _merely_--although we have this _still_--an increasing division\nof labour; but we have the labourers of all kinds and grades separating\nthemselves into one group on the one hand, and the men who direct their\nlabour, as a separate group, on the other hand.\n\nThe function of the directive faculties, as applied thus to the\noperations of modern labour, can perhaps be most easily illustrated by\nthe case of a printed book. Let us take two editions of ten thousand\ncopies each, similarly printed, and priced at six shillings a copy; the\none being an edition of a book so dull that but twenty copies can be\nsold of it, the other of a book so interesting that the public buys the\nwhole ten thousand. Now, apart from its negligible value as so many tons\nof waste paper, each pile of books represents economic wealth only in\nproportion to the quantity of it for which the vendors can find\npurchasers. Hence we have in the present case two piles of printed paper\nwhich, regarded as paper patterned with printer's ink, are similar, but\none of which is wealth to the extent of three thousand pounds, while the\nother is wealth to the extent of no more than six pounds. And to what is\nthe difference between these two values due? It obviously cannot be due\nto the manual labour of the compositors, for this, both in kind and\nquantity, is in each case the same. It is due to the special directions\nunder which the labour of the compositors is performed. But these\ndirections do not emanate from the men by whose hands the types are\narranged in a given order.\n\nThey come from the author, who conveys them to the compositors through\nhis manuscript; which manuscript, considered under its economic aspect,\nis neither more nor less than a series of minute orders, which modify\nfrom second to second every movement of the compositors' hands, and\ndetermine the subsequent results of every impress of the type on paper;\none mind thus, by directing the labour of others, imparting the quality\nof much wealth or of little or of none, to every one of the ten thousand\ncopies of which the edition is composed.\n\nSimilarly when a man invents, and brings into practical use, some new\nand successful apparatus such, let us say, as the telephone, the same\nsituation repeats itself. The new apparatus is an addition to the\nworld's wealth, not because so many scraps of wood, brass, nickel,\nvulcanite, and such and such lengths of wire are shaped, stretched, and\nconnected with sufficient manual dexterity--for the highest dexterity is\nvery often employed in the making of contrivances which turn out to be\nfutile--but because each of its parts is fashioned in obedience to\ncertain designs with which this dexterity, as such, has nothing at all\nto do. The apparatus is successful, and an addition to the world's\nwealth, because the designs of the inventor, just like the author's\nmanuscript, constitute a multitude of injunctions proceeding from a\nmaster-mind, which is not the mind of those by whose hands they are\ncarried into execution.\n\nAnd with the direction of labour generally, whether in the production of\nmachinery or the use of the machinery in the production of goods for the\npublic, the case is again the same. We have manual labour of a given\nkind and quality, which assists in producing what is wanted or not\nwanted--what is so much wealth or simply so much refuse, in accordance\nwith the manner in which all this labour is directed by faculties\nspecifically different from those exercised by the manual labourers\nthemselves.\n\nAnd now we are in a position to sum up in a brief and decisive formula\nwhat the difference between the sets of faculties thus contrasted is. It\nis not essentially a difference between lower and higher, for some forms\nof labour, such as that of the great painter, may be morally higher than\nsome forms of direction. The difference is one not of degree, but of\nkind, and includes two different psycho-physical processes. Labour, from\nthe most ordinary up to the rarest kind, _is the mind or the brain of\none man affecting that man's own hands_, and the single task on which\nhis hands happen to be engaged. The directive faculties are _the mind or\nthe brain of one man simultaneously affecting the hands of any number of\nother men_, and through their hands the simultaneous tasks of all of\nthem, no matter how various these tasks may be.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE ERRORS OF MARX, CONTINUED.\nCAPITAL AS THE IMPLEMENT OF ABILITY\n\nThe human activities and faculties, then, which are involved in the\nproduction of modern wealth, are not, as Marx says--and as the orthodox\neconomists said, whom he rightly calls his masters, and as their\nfollowers still say--of one kind--namely, those embodied in the\nindividual task-work of the individual, to which Marx, Ricardo, and Mill\nalike give the name of \"labour\"; they are of two kinds. And this,\nindeed, the earlier economists recognised, as we may see by Mill's\ncasual admission that the progress of industrial effort depends before\nall things on thought and the advance of knowledge. But they recognised\nthe fact in a general way only. How thought and knowledge affected the\nindustrial process they made no attempt to explain, otherwise than by\ncomprehending them on occasion under the common name of labour, which\nthey assigned throughout most of their arguments to manual task-work\nonly.\n\nNow, it is doubtless true that, as a mere matter of verbal propriety,\nthis general sense may be given to the word \"labour,\" if we please; but\nif in discussing the efforts which produce wealth we admit that these\nefforts are not of one kind but two, and if the word \"labour\" is, in\nnine cases out of ten, employed with the definite intention of\ndesignating only one of them, it is impossible to reason about the\nindustrial process intelligibly, so long as we apply also the same name\nto the other. We might as well use the word \"man\"--as with reference to\nsome problems we are perfectly right in doing--to designate both men and\nwomen, and then attempt to discuss the relations between the two sexes.\n\nFor the directive faculties, so essentially distinct from those to which\nuniversal custom has allocated the name of labour, it is difficult to\nfind a name equally convenient and satisfying. In default of a better, I\nhave, on former occasions, applied to it the name of Ability; and this\nwill serve our purpose here--especially as it is a name which has been,\nof recent years, applied by many of the more thoughtful socialists\nthemselves to certain activities of a mental and moral kind, which their\nconception of labour cannot be made to include, but which they are\nbeginning to recognise as playing some part in production. We must\nremember, however, that we are using it in a strictly technical sense,\nwhich will in some respects be narrower than the ordinary, and in some\nmore comprehensive. It will exclude all kinds of cleverness unapplied\nto economic production; and will include many powers, in so far as such\nproduction is affected by them, to the expression of whose scope and\ncharacter it may sometimes appear inadequate.[1]\n\nAnd now when we have come thus far, a quite new question arises. We have\nseen how ability is, by its direction of labour, the chief agency in\nthat process which produces wealth to-day, and how it makes the amount\nproduced, relatively to the number of the producers, so incomparably\ngreater than it ever was under any previous system. We have now to\nconsider the means by which this faculty of direction is exercised.\n\nIn order to understand this, we must turn our attention again to\ncapital, as something distinct and detached from the human efforts that\nhave produced it; and we shall find that the conception of it which\ndominated the thought of Marx, and that which dominates the thought of\nthe orthodox school of economists, either excludes altogether, or fails\nto reveal the nature of, that particular force and function of it which,\nin the modern world, are fundamental.\n\nCapital is divided traditionally into two kinds, technically called\n\"fixed\" and \"circulating.\" By fixed capital, which is what Marx had\nmainly in view, is meant machinery, and the works and structures\nconnected with it; and it is called \"fixed\" on account of its\ncomparative permanence. By circulating capital is meant, as Adam Smith\nputs it, any stock of those consumable commodities which, produced by\nthe aid of machinery, the merchant or the store-keeper buys in order to\nsell them at a profit; and it is called \"circulating\" because the\ncommodities which are sold to-day are replaced by new ones of an\nequivalent kind to-morrow.\n\nNow, as to fixed capital, or the endlessly elaborated machinery of the\nmodern world, we have seen already that this is, in its distinctive\nfeatures, not, as Marx declared it to be, a crystallisation of labour,\nbut a crystallisation of the ability by which labour has been directed;\nbut this revised explanation tells us nothing of the means by which the\ndirection is accomplished. Still less is any light thrown on the\nquestion by the nature of circulating capital, as Adam Smith understands\nit.\n\nThe kind of capital which alone concerns us here is a kind which\nresembles circulating capital in respect of its material form, and is\noften indeed in this respect identical with it; but it differs from\ncirculating capital in respect of the use made of it. Such capital we\nmay call wage-capital. Wage-capital, although in practice it disguises\nitself under the form of money, is essentially a stock of goods which\nare the daily necessaries of life, but which, instead of being sold to\nthe public, like the goods of the store-keeper, at a profit, are\ndistributed by their possessor among a special group of labourers on\nconditions. The first of these is naturally that the labourers do work\nof some sort. The second condition, and the one that concerns us here,\nis that, besides doing work of some sort, each labourer shall do the\nwork which the distributer of the goods prescribes to him.\n\nHere we have before us the means by which, in the modern world, the\nability of the few directs the labour of the many; and, in proportion to\nthe quality and intensity of the directive powers that are exercised,\nadds to the value of the results which this labour would have produced\notherwise. Thus in wage-capital we have the capital of the modern world\nin what dynamically is its primary and parent form--a kind of capital\nwhich improved machinery is always tending to augment, but of whose use\nthe machinery itself, its renewal, and its continued improvement, are\nthe consequences.\n\nThat such is the case might be illustrated by any number of familiar\nexamples. A man invents a new machine having some useful purpose--let us\nsay the production of some new kind of manure, which will double the\nfertility of every field in the country. In order to put this machine on\nthe market, and make it a fact instead of a mere conception, the first\nthing necessary is, as every human being knows, that the inventor shall\npossess, or acquire, the control of capital. And what is the next step?\nWhen the capital is provided, how will it first be used? It will be used\nin the form of wages, or articles of daily consumption, which will be\ndistributed among a certain number of mechanics and other labourers, on\ncondition that they set about fashioning, in certain prescribed groups,\nso much metal into so many prescribed shapes--some of them shaping it\ninto wheels, some into knives and rollers, some into sieves, rods,\ncranks, cams, and eccentrics, in accordance with patterns which have\nnever been followed previously; and of all these individual operations\nthe new machine, as a practical implement, is the result. The machine is\nnew, and it is an addition to the wealth-producing powers of the world,\nnot because it embodies so much labour, but because it embodies so much\nlabour directed in a new way; and it is only by means of the conditions\nwhich the possession of wage-capital enables the inventor or his\npartners to impose upon every one of the labourers that the machine, as\na practical implement, comes into existence at all.\n\nHence we see that Marx was at once right and wrong when he said that\nmodern capitalism is, in its essence, monopoly. It is monopoly; but it\nis not primarily, as Marx thought, a passive monopoly of improved\ninstruments of production. It is primarily a monopoly of products which\nare essential to the life of the labourer; and it is a monopoly of\nthese, not in the invidious sense that the monopolists retain them for\ntheir own personal consumption, as they do in the case of rare wines and\nfabrics, which can, from the nature of the case, be enjoyed by a few\nonly. It is a monopoly of them in the sense that the monopolists have\nsuch a control over their distribution as enables them to control the\npurely technical actions of those persons who ultimately own and consume\nthe whole of them.[2]\n\nModern capital, then, I repeat, is primarily wage-capital, such capital\nas modern machinery being the direct result of its application; and\nwage-capital is productive, not in virtue of any quality inherent in\nitself, but merely because as a fact, under the modern system, it\nconstitutes the reins by which the exceptional ability of a few guides\nthe labour, skilled or unskilled, of the many. It is the means by which\nthe commonest labourer, who hardly knows the rule of three, is made to\nwork as though he were master of the abstruest branches of mathematics;\nby which the artisan who only has a smattering--if he has as much as\nthat--of mechanics, metallurgy, chemistry, is made to work as though all\nthe sciences had been assimilated by his single brain.\n\nLet any one consider, for example, one of the great steel bridges which\nnow throw their single spans over waters such as the Firth of Forth.\nThese structures are crystallised labour, doubtless, but they are, in\ntheir distinctive features, not crystallised labour as such. They are\ncrystallised mechanics, crystallised chemistry, crystallised\nmathematics--in short, crystallised intellect, knowledge, imagination,\nand executive capacity, of kinds which hardly exist in a dozen minds out\nof a million; and labour conduces to the production of such astonishing\nstructures only because it submits itself to the guidance of these\nintellectual leaders. And the same is the case with modern production\ngenerally. Though labour is essential to the production of wealth even\nin the smallest quantities, the distinguishing productivity of industry\nin the modern world depends not on the labour, but on the ability with\nwhich the labour is directed; and in the modern world the primary\nfunction of capital is that of providing ability with its necessary\ninstrument of direction.\n\nNo unprejudiced person, who is capable of coherent thought, can, when\nthe matter is thus plainly stated, possibly deny this. That it cannot be\ndenied will be shown in the two following chapters by recent admissions\non the part of socialists themselves, the more thoughtful of whom have\nnow virtually abandoned the earlier theoretical framework of socialism\naltogether, and are trying to substitute a new one, with which we will\ndeal later, and which will indeed prove the main subject of our\ninquiry.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] When I insisted on this distinction between \"labour\" and \"ability\"\nin America, innumerable critics met me with two objections. One of\nthese, as stated by a writer who confessed himself otherwise in entire\nagreement with me, was this: \"It is impossible, as Mr. Mallock attempts\nto do, to draw a hard-and-fast line between mental effort and muscular.\"\nNo such attempt is made. As I pointed out in one of my speeches, many\nkinds of \"labour\" (_e.g._ that of the great painter) exhibit higher\nmentality than do many kinds of ability. Further, I pointed out that, in\na technical sense, the same effort may be either an effort of labour or\nability, according to its application. Thus, if a singer sings to an\naudience, his effort is technically \"labour,\" because it ends with the\nsingle task; but if he sings so as to produce a gramophone record, his\neffort is an act of \"ability,\" for he influences the products of other\nmen, by whom the records are multiplied. The second objection was\nexpressed by one of my critics thus: \"I say that all productive effort\nis labour.... I dare you to tell any one of these genii that they are\nnot labourers.\" Another critic said: \"Just as 'land' in economics means\nall the forces of nature, so does 'labour' mean all the forces of man.\nWhy, then, speak of ability?\" These criticisms are purely verbal. If we\nlike to take \"labour\" as a collective name for all forms of human\neffort, we can of course do so; but in that case we must find other\ndifferential names for the different forces of effort individually. To\ngive them all the same name is not to explain them. It is to tie them\nall up in a parcel.\n\n[2] If this fact requires any further exemplification, we can find one\non a large scale in the pages of Marx himself. According to him the\nfirst appreciable capitalistic movement--the first leaping of the modern\nsystem in the womb--took place in the English cloth trade about four\nhundred years ago. Now, if capitalism were merely, as according to Marx\nit is, a passive monopoly by some men of implements which have been\nproduced by others, the pioneers of capitalism in the reign of Henry\nVIII. would have got into their possession all the hand-looms then in\nuse; they would have taken their toll in kind from all whom they allowed\nto use them; and there the matter would have ended. The looms of to-day\nwould be the looms of four hundred years ago. The passive ownership of\nmachines does nothing to improve their construction. If a gang of\nignorant thieves could steal all the watches in America, and then let\nthem out to the public at so much a month or year, this would not\nconvert the three-dollar watches into chronometers. And how little mere\nlabour, or the experience gained by labour, tends to improve the\nimplements which the labourer uses is shown by the fact that the looms\nwhich wove Anne Boleyn's petticoats were practically the same as the\nlooms which wove those of Semiramis.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nREPUDIATION OF MARX BY MODERN SOCIALISTS.\nTHEIR RECOGNITION OF DIRECTIVE ABILITY\n\nIn saying that, up to the point which our argument has thus far reached,\nthe more thoughtful among the socialists to-day concede and even assert\nits truth, I have evidence in view of a very opposite kind. When I\ndelivered, as I did recently, a series of addresses on socialism to\nvarious meetings in America, I approached the subject in the manner in\nwhich I have approached it here. I began with the process of production\npure and simple, and I showed how crude and childish, as applied to\nproduction in modern times, was the analysis of Marx and all the earlier\nsocialists. I showed, as I have shown here, that, the amount of labour\nbeing given, the quantity and quality of wealth that will result from\nits exercise depend on the ability with which by means of wage-capital\nthis labour is directed.\n\nThe two addresses in which these points were elaborated had no sooner\nbeen delivered than, from all parts of the country, through newspapers\nand private letters, and sometimes by word of mouth, socialists of\nvarious types addressed themselves to the business of replying to me.\nThese replies, whatever may have been their differences otherwise, all\ntook the form of a declaration that I was only wasting my time in\nexposing the doctrine that labour is the sole producer of wealth, and in\nlaying such stress on the part played by directive ability; for no\nserious socialist of the present day any longer believed the one, or\nfailed to recognise the other. Thus one of my critics told me that what\nI ought to do was \"to discuss the principles of socialism as understood\nand accepted by the intelligent disciples, and not the worn-out and\ndiscredited theories of Marx.\" Another was good enough to tell me that I\nhad \"cleverly accomplished the task of exposing the errors of Marx, both\nof premise and of logic\"; but the leaders of socialistic thought \"in its\nlater developments\" had, he proceeded to say, long ago outgrown these. A\nthird wrote me a letter bristling with all kinds of challenges, and\nasked me if I thought, for example, that socialists were such fools as\nnot to recognise that the talents of an inventor like Mr. Edison\nincreased the productivity of labour by the new direction which they\ngave to it. I might multiply similar quotations, but one more will be\nenough here. It is taken from a long article directed against myself by\nMr. Hillquit--a writer to whom my special attention was called as by far\nthe most accomplished exponent, among the militant socialists of\nAmerica, of socialism in its most logical and most highly developed\nform. \"It requires,\" said Mr. Hillquit, \"no special genius to\ndemonstrate that all labour is not alike, nor equally productive. It is\nstill more obvious that common manual labour is impotent to produce the\nwealth of modern nations--that organisation, direction, and control are\nessential to productive work in the field of modern production, and are\njust as much a factor in it as mere physical effort.\"[3]\n\nBut we need not confine ourselves to my own late critics in America. The\ngeneral history of socialism as a reasoned theory is practically the\nsame in one country as in another. The intellectual socialists in\nEngland, among whom Mr. Bernard Shaw and Mr. Sidney Webb are prominent,\nexpress themselves in even plainer terms with regard to the part which\ndirective ability, as opposed to labour, plays in the modern world.\n\"Ability,\" says Mr. Shaw, employing the very word, is often the factor\nwhich determines whether a given industry shall make a loss of five per\ncent. or else a profit of twenty; and Mr. Webb, as we shall have\noccasion to see presently, carries the argument further, and states it\nin greater detail.\n\nWhy, then, it may be asked, should a critic of contemporary socialism\nthink it worth while to expose with so much minuteness a fallacy which\nintellectual socialists now all agree in repudiating, and to insist with\nsuch emphasis on facts which they profess to recognise as self-evident?\nTo this question there are two answers.\n\nOne of these I indicated at the close of our opening chapter; and this\nat the cost of what in logic is a mere digression, it will be desirable,\nfor practical purposes, to state it with greater fulness.\n\nAdmissions and assertions, such as those which I have just now quoted,\ndo, no doubt, represent a definite intellectual advance which has taken\nplace in the theory of socialism, among those who are its most\nthoughtful exponents, and in a certain sense its leaders. They represent\nwhat these leaders think and say among themselves, and what they put\nforward when disputing with opponents who are competent to criticise\nthem. But what they do not represent is socialism as still preached to\nthe populace, or the doctrine which is still vital for socialists as a\npopular party. This is still, just as it was originally, the socialism\nof Marx in an absolutely unamended form. It is the doctrine that the\nmanual efforts of the vast multitude of labourers, directed only by the\nminds of the individual labourers themselves, produce all the wealth of\nthe world; that the holding of any of this wealth by any other class\nwhatever stands for nothing but a system of legalised plunder; and that\nthe labourers need only inaugurate a legislation of a new kind in order\nto secure and enjoy what always was by rights their own. Let me\nillustrate this assertion by two examples, one supplied to us by\nEngland, the other by America.\n\nIn England the body which calls itself the Social Democratic Federation,\nand represents at this moment socialism of the more popular kind, began\nits campaign with a manifesto which was headed with the familiar words,\n\"All wealth is due to labour; therefore to the labourer all wealth is\ndue.\" This text or motto was followed by certain figures, with regard to\nthe total income of Great Britain, and the manner in which it is at\npresent distributed. Labour was represented as getting less than\none-fourth of the whole, and the labourers were informed that if they\nwould but \"educate themselves, agitate, and organise,\" the remaining\nthree-fourths would automatically pass into their possession. This\ndocument, it is true, was issued some twenty years ago;[4] but that the\nform which socialism takes, when addressed to the masses of the\npopulation, has not appreciably altered from that day to this, will be\nmade sufficiently clear by the following pertinent fact. Shortly after\nmy arrival in America, in the winter of 1907, the most active\ndisseminator of socialistic literature in New York sent me, by way of a\nchallenge, a new and very spruce volume, which contained the most\nimportant of his previous leaflets and articles, collected and\nrepublished, and claiming renewed attention. The first of these--and it\nwas signalised by an accompanying advertisement as fundamental--bore the\nimpressive title of, \"Why the Working Man should be a Socialist,\" and\nthe answer to this question is given in the writer's opening words. \"You\nknow,\" he says, addressing any labourer and the street-worker, \"or you\nought to know, that you alone produce all the good things of life; and\nyou know, or you ought to know, that by so simple a process as that of\ncasting your ballot intelligently you will be able\"--to do what? The\nwriter explains himself in language which, except for a difference in\nhis statistics, is almost a verbal repetition of that of his English\npredecessors. He specifies two sums, one representing the income which\neach working-man in America would receive were the entire wealth of the\ncountry divided equally among the manual labourers; the other\nrepresenting the income which, on an average, he actually receives as\nwages; and the writer tells every working man that, by \"merely casting\nhis ballot intelligently,\" he can secure for himself the whole\ndifference between the larger sum and the less.[5]\n\nBut the fact that the Marxian doctrine of the all-productivity of\nlabour, and the consequent economic nullity of all other forms of\neffort, still supplies the main ideas by which popular socialism is\nvitalised, is shown perhaps even more distinctly by the popular hopes\nand demands which result from this doctrine indirectly than it is by the\ndirect reassertion of the formal doctrine itself. One of the members of\nthe Parliamentary Labour party in England celebrated his success at the\npolls by a letter to the _Times_, proclaiming that socialism was a\nmoral quite as much as an economic movement, and that an object which to\nsocialists was dearer even than the seizure of the riches of the rich,\nwas the achievement of \"economic freedom,\" or, in other words, the\n\"emancipation of labour,\" or, in other words again, the abolition of the\nsystem which he described as \"wagedom.\" I merely mention the particular\nletter in question in order to remind the reader of these familiar\nphrases, which are current in every country where the theory of\nsocialism has spread itself.\n\nNow, what does all this talk about the emancipation of labour mean? It\ncan only mean one or other of two things: either that the economic\nprosperity of every nation in the future will depend on the emancipation\nof every average mind from the guidance of any minds that are in any way\nsuperior to itself, or are able to enhance the productivity of an\naverage pair of hands--a proposition so ludicrous that nobody would\nconsciously assent to it; or else it means a continued assent to the\ntheory which fails to correlate labour with directive ability at all,\nand so never raises the question of whether the latter is necessary or\nno.\n\nWhat, then, becomes of that chorus of vehement protestations, with which\nmy critics in America were all so eager to overwhelm me, to the effect\nthat socialists to-day recognise as clearly as I do that \"common manual\nlabour,\" as Mr. Hillquit puts it, \"is impotent to produce the wealth of\nmodern nations,\" apart from the \"organisation and control\" of the minds\nmost competent to direct it? That the more intellectual socialists of\nto-day do recognise this fact--some with greater and some with less\ndistinctness--is the very point on which I am anxious to insist. We\nshall have abundant opportunities for considering it later on. For the\nmoment, however, I pause to ask them the following question.\nRecognising, as they do, and eagerly proclaiming as they do, whenever\nthey address themselves to those who are capable of serious dispute with\nthem, that the original theory of socialism, which was the creed of such\nbodies as the International, is absolutely false in itself, and in many\nof the expectations which it stimulates, why do not they set themselves,\nwhenever they address the multitude, to expose and repudiate a fallacy\nin which they no longer believe? Do they do this? Do they make an\nattempt to do this? On the contrary, as a rule, though there are\ndoubtless many honourable exceptions, they endeavour to hide from the\nmultitude their intellectual change of front altogether; and, instead of\ninsisting that the undirected labour of the many is, in the modern\nworld, impotent to produce anything, they continue to speak of it as\nthough it produced everything, and as though no class other than the\nlabouring fulfilled any economic function or had any right to exist.[6]\n\n\nLet me give the reader an example, which is curiously apt here. It is\ntaken from Mr. Hillquit's own attack on myself, which filled the front\nsheet of a newspaper, and was distributed to the public at the door of\none of the buildings in which I spoke. Of the short passages, amounting\nto some twenty lines out of six hundred, in which alone he condescended\nto detailed argument, the first is that in which, as we have already\nseen, he declares that all socialists know, without any instruction on\nmy part, that common manual labour, unless it is directed by ability, is\n\"impotent to produce the wealth of modern nations.\" But having made this\nadmission with much blowing of trumpets, he immediately drops it, and\ninstead of developing its consequences, he diverts the attention of his\nreaders from it by a long series of irrelevancies; nor does he return to\nthe question of directive ability at all till he is nearing the end of\nhis discourse, when he suddenly takes it up again, declaring that he\nwill meet and refute me on ground which I myself have chosen, and show\nthat wealth--at all events in the commercial sense--is still produced by\nmanual labour alone. He refers to my selection of the case of a printed\nbook, as illustrating, in the manner explained in an earlier chapter,\nthe part which directive ability plays in modern production. The\neconomic value of an edition of a printed book, I said, as the reader\nwill remember, depends in the most obvious way, not on the labour of\ncompositors, but on the quality of the directions which the author\nimposes on this labour through his manuscript--the author's mind being\ntypical of directive ability generally. And what has Mr. Hillquit--the\nintellectual Ajax of the socialists--got to say about this? \"Whether a\nbook,\" he says, \"is a work of genius or mere rubbish will largely affect\nits literary or artistic value; but it will have very little bearing on\nits economic or commercial value.\" This, he goes on to argue, will,\ndespite all my objections, be found to depend on ordinary manual labour,\nof which the labour of the hands of the compositors is that which\nconcerns us most. Nothing, according to him, can be more evident than\nthis. \"For the market price,\" he says, \"of a wretched detective story,\nof the same length as Hamlet, and printed in the same way, will be\nexactly the same as that of a copy of Hamlet itself.\"\n\nNow, if we consider Mr. Hillquit as a purely literary critic, we can but\nadmire his subtlety in discovering that the literary value of a book is\nlargely affected by the fact of the book's not being rubbish; but when\nhe descends from pure criticism to economics, it is difficult, unless we\nsuppose him to have taken leave of his senses, to imagine that he can\nhimself believe in the medley of nonsense propounded by him. For what\nhe is here doing--or more probably pretending to do--is to confuse the\ncost of producing an edition of a book with the commercial value of that\nedition when produced. The labour in question no doubt determines the\nprice at which the printed paper can be sold at a profit, or without\nloss; but the number of copies which the public will be willing to buy,\nor, in other words, the value of the edition commercially, depends on\nqualities resident in the mind of the author, which render the book\nattractive to but few readers, or to many. Whether these qualities\namount to genius in the higher sense of the word, or to nothing more\nthan a knack of titillating the curiosity of the vulgar, does not affect\nthe question. In either case--and this is the sole important fact--they\nare qualities of the author's mind, and of the author's mind alone; and\nthe labour of the compositors conduces to the production of a pile of\nvolumes which is of large, of little, or of no value commercially, not\naccording to the dexterity with which this labour is performed, but\naccording to the manner in which the author's mind directs it.\n\nThan any human being who is capable of perceiving that the literary\nquality of a book is largely affected by the fact of the book's not\nbeing rubbish, should seriously suppose that the saleable value of\neditions--whether they are editions of a popular novel, or of a treatise\non the conchology of Kamchatka, is proportionate to the number of\nletters in them arranged in parallel lines--for Mr. Hillquit's argument\nmeans neither more nor less than this--is, let me repeat, incredible.\nWhat, then, is the explanation of his indulging in a performance of this\ndegrading kind? The explanation is that he, like so many of his\ncolleagues, though recognising personally that labour among \"modern\nnations\" depends for its higher productivity on the picked men who\ndirect it, cannot bring himself to renounce, when he is making his\nappeal to the masses, the old doctrine that they are the sole producers;\nand accordingly having started with the ostentatious admission that\ndirective ability is as essential to production as labour is, he\nendeavours by his verbal jugglery with the case of a printed book to\nconvey the impression that labour produces all values after all; and he\nactually manages to wind up with a repetition of the old Marxian moral\nthat the profits of ability mean nothing but labour which has not been\npaid for.[7]\n\nOne of my reasons, then, for beginning the present examination of\nsocialism with exposing the fallacy of principles which the intellectual\nsocialists of to-day are so eager to proclaim that they have long since\nabandoned, is the fact that these principles are still the principles of\nthe multitude; that for practical purposes they are those which most\nurgently require refutation; and that the intellectual socialists who\nhave doubtless repudiated them personally, not only do not attempt to\ndiscredit them in the eyes of the ignorant, but themselves continue to\nappeal to them as instruments of popular agitation.\n\nMy other reason for following the course in question is that the theory\nof socialism in its higher and more recent forms, which recognises\ndirective intellect in addition to manual effort as one of the forces\nessential to the production of modern wealth, cannot be understood and\nestimated in any profitable way, without a previous examination of those\nearlier doctrines and ideas, some of which it still retains, while it\nmodifies and rejects others.\n\nAnd now let us take up again the thread of our main argument. We laid\nthis down early in the present chapter, having emphasised the fact that,\nthe intellectual socialists of to-day agree, on their own admission,\nwith one proposition at all events which has been elucidated in this\nvolume--namely, that labour alone, as one of their spokesmen puts it,\n\"is impotent to produce the wealth of modern nations,\" the faculties and\nthe functions of the minority by whom labour is directed and organised\nbeing no less essential to the result than the labour of the majority\nitself. In the following chapter we shall see that this agreement\nextends yet further.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[3] Mr. Hillquit--a lawyer, who has adopted the business of propagating\nsocialism in America--is unknown in England; but his name, not long ago,\nwas to be found in the English papers, as that of one of the\nrepresentatives sent from America to a recent Socialistic Congress in\nEurope. Amongst the socialists of the United States he holds a position\nanalogous to that enjoyed by Mr. Shaw, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Ramsey\nMacdonald in England.\n\n[4] Whilst this work was in the press a \"Catechism,\" lately published in\nEngland, for use of children, was sent me. It was proposed to use this\nCatechism on Sundays in the London County Council Schools. The first\neconomic \"lesson\" in it begins thus: \"Who creates all wealth? The\nworking-class. Who are the workers? Men who work for wages.\" All who are\nnot wage-workers are declared in this catechism to be absolutely idle\nand not productive.\n\n[5] The writer of this leaflet, Mr. Wilshire, has subsequently declared\nin his published criticisms of myself, that I impute to socialists what\nno socialists really say, and contends that, when he thus speaks of\n\"working-men\" and \"labourers,\" he includes all men who contribute\nanything to the productive forces of a country--inventors like Mr.\nEdison, and millionaire captains of industry, in so far as they are\nactive agents, and not mere recipients of interest. But that such is not\nthe meaning which he conveys, or desires to convey, to those to whom his\nleaflet addresses itself, is plainly shown by his statistics, if by\nnothing else; for the share of the national income, which goes, as he\nasserts, to \"labour,\" is avowedly the amount which, according to his\nestimate, is paid to-day in America, as weekly wages to the mass of\nmanual labourers. To say that labour _in its more extended sense_ is the\nproducer of all wealth, is a mere meaningless platitude. It is to say\nthat there would be no wealth without effort of some kind. Does Mr.\nWilshire seriously wish us to believe that he is telling Mr. Edison that\n\"if he will only cast his ballot intelligently\" he will be able to\ntreble his income at the expense of richer men?\n\n[6] This applies to England no less than to America. Whenever any one of\nthe more educated amongst the socialistic agitators is taxed with\nmaintaining the popular doctrines of socialism with regard to labour, he\nat once repudiates them, and accuses his opponents of imputing to him\nand his fellows childish fallacies which no one in his senses would\nmaintain; but the propagation of these fallacies amongst the more\nignorant sections of the population continues just the same.\n\n[7] According to Mr. Hillquit, Dickens, for example, made his whole\nfortune by robbing his compositors.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nREPUDIATION OF MARX BY MODERN SOCIALISTS, CONTINUED.\nTHEIR RECOGNITION OF CAPITAL AS THE IMPLEMENT OF DIRECTIVE ABILITY.\nTHEIR NEW POSITION, AND THEIR NEW THEORETICAL DIFFICULTIES\n\nThe reader will remember how, having first elucidated the part which\nexceptional mental faculties, concentrated on the direction of labour,\nand here called ability, play in modern production, I proceeded to\nthe question of the means by which this direction is accomplished,\nand showed that these were supplied by the possession of\nwage-capital--capitalism thus representing no mere passive monopoly, but\na system of reins which are attached to innumerable horses, and are\nuseless except as vehicles of the skill with which the coachmen handle\nthem. We shall find that by implication, if not always by direct\nadmission, the intellectual socialists of to-day are in virtual but\nunacknowledged agreement with this further portion of the present\nargument also.\n\nIn order to demonstrate that such is the case, let me briefly call\nattention to a point on which we shall have to dwell at much greater\nlength presently--namely, that these socialists, though they reject the\ntheory of production on which morally and intellectually the earlier\nsocialism based itself, persist in making promises to the labourers\nprecisely of the same kind as those with which the earlier socialism\nfirst whetted their appetites. In especial besides promising them\nindefinitely augmented wealth, they continue to promise them also some\nsort of _economic emancipation_; and many of these socialists, in\nexplicit accord with their predecessors, declare that what they mean by\nemancipation is the entire abolition of the wage-system.\n\nProminent among this number are Mr. Sidney Webb and his colleagues, who\nare certainly the best educated group of socialistic thinkers in\nEngland. Mr. Webb, in particular, is a man of conspicuous talent, and\nfew writers can afford a more favourable illustration than he does of\nthe lines along which the socialistic theory of society is compelled, by\nthe exigencies of logical thought, to develop itself. Now, in proposing\nto abolish the wage-system, Mr. Webb and his fellow-theorists do not do\nso without specifying a definite substitute; and when we come to\nconsider what their substitute is, we shall find that it implies, on\ntheir part, a full recognition of the function which wage-capital, as\nthe instrument of ability, performs in modern production.\n\nNow, the reader must observe that, in indicating the nature of the\nfunction in question--namely, that of providing a means by which the\nprocess of direction may be accomplished--and in showing how under the\nexisting system wage-capital is what actually performs it, I never for a\nmoment implied that wage-capital was the only means by which the same\nresult might be accomplished. Indeed, if we look back into the past\nhistory of mankind, we shall find that there are two systems other than\nthat of wages, by which the conformity of labour to the requisite\ndirections of ability, not only might be, but actually has been secured.\nOne of these is the corvee system prevalent in the Middle Ages. The\nother system is that of slavery. Under the corvee system, peasants were\nthe proprietors of the plots of ground on which they lived, and were\nthus able to maintain themselves by working at their own discretion; but\nthey were compelled by their tenure to place a certain part of their\ntime at the disposal of their feudal superior, and to work according to\nhis orders. If only a number of otherwise independent peasants could be\nforced to give enough of their time to the proprietor of a factory\nto-day, the entire use of wage-capital would in his case be gone. The\nsame thing is true of slavery. Like the peasant proprietor, who gives\npart of his time to his overlord, the slave is provided with the\nnecessaries of life independently of his obedience to the detailed\norders of his master. His master feeds him just as he would feed an\nanimal; the industrial obedience is insured by the subsequent\napplication of force.\n\nThese two coercive systems are the only alternatives to the wage-system\nthat have ever been found workable in the past history of the world. We\nwill now consider the system which some of the most thoughtful\nsocialists of to-day are proposing as a substitute for it in the\nhoped-for socialistic future. The school of English socialists, of which\nMr. Webb is the best-known member, have given to the world a volume\ncalled _Fabian Essays_. This volume was republished in America, and to\nthe American edition a special preface was prefixed with a view to\nemphasising the essentials of a socialistic conception of society, and\nbringing the details of the socialistic theory up to date. In this\npreface it is stated, with regard to the apportionment of material\nwealth generally, that \"the only truly socialistic scheme\" is one which\n\"will absolutely abolish all economic distinctions, and prevent the\npossibility of their ever again arising.\" And how would it accomplish\nthis end? \"By making,\" says the writer, \"an equal provision for all an\nindefeasible condition of citizenship, without any regard whatever to\nthe relative specific services of the different citizens. The rendering\nof such services on the other hand,\" the writer goes on, \"instead of\nbeing left to the option of the citizen, with the alternative of\nstarvation (as is the case under the wage-system) would be secured\nunder one uniform law of civic duty, precisely like other forms of\ntaxation or military service.\"\n\nSuch, then, is the system which is put forward by educated socialists\nto-day as the only means of escape from the existing system of wages.\nAnd an escape from the wage-system--and one not theoretically\nimpracticable--it no doubt is; but an escape into what? It is an escape\ninto one of those systems which I have just now mentioned. That is to\nsay, it is an escape into economic slavery. For the very essence of the\nposition of the slave, as contrasted with the wage-paid labourer, is, so\nfar as the direction of his industrial actions is concerned, that he has\nnot to work as he is bidden in order to gain a livelihood, but that, his\nlivelihood being assured him no matter how he behaves himself, he is\nobliged to work as he is bidden in order to avoid the lash, or some\nother form of equally effective punishment.[8]\n\nNow, I am not attempting here to find any fault with socialism on the\nground that it would, on the admission of some of its most thoughtful\nexponents, be obliged to re-establish slavery as the price of\nemancipation from \"wagedom.\" I have commented on this fact solely with\nthe view to showing that the nature of the alternative to the\nwage-system thus proposed indicates a full recognition, on the part of\nthose proposing it, of the nature and necessity of the functions which\nthe wage-system performs at present--namely, that of supplying the means\nby which the ablest minds in the community secure from the mass of the\ncitizens the punctual performance of the industrial tasks required of\nthem. I am not even insisting that such a slave-system as Mr. Webb\ncontemplates is logically essential to the theory of intellectual\nsocialism at all. On the contrary, as may be seen from a letter\naddressed to myself by a member of a socialistic body at Chicago, many\nsocialists, as to this matter, are opposed to Mr. Webb altogether.\nSocialists, says my correspondent, speaking for himself and his\nassociates, have no objection whatever to the system of \"wagedom\" as\nsuch; nor do they wish to see the direction of labour \"enforced by the\npower of the law.\" They recognise, he says, quoting my own words, that\nproduction under socialism, just as under the present system, will be\nefficient in proportion as labour is directed by the best minds \"which\ncan enhance the productivity of an average pair of hands.\" They object\nto the wage-system only in so far as it is a means by \"which the\nemploying class can make a profit out of the labourers\"; and the only\nchange which in this respect socialists desire to introduce is to\ntransfer the business of wage-paying from the private capitalist to the\nstate--the state which will have no \"private interests to serve,\" and\nconsequently no temptation to appropriate any profits for itself.\nSocialists, he continues, subject to this proviso, would leave the\nwage-system just as it is now. The state would pay those who worked, and\nin accordance with the work they did; but the idle or refractory it\nwould \"leave to starve to death, if they so elected, unless somebody\nwished to keep them alive, as happens at the present time.\"\n\nThe difference between socialists with regard to this question, however,\ndoes nothing in itself to discredit the socialistic theory as a whole.\nIt has merely the effect of providing us with two sets of witnesses\ninstead of one to the truth of a common principle, which is recognised\nby both equally. One set declares that the ability of the most competent\nmen must direct the labours of the majority by means of an appeal to\ntheir fears; the other declares that the same result must be\naccomplished, as it is at the present time, by an appeal to their choice\nand prudence. In either case it is admitted that the separate manual\ntasks performed by the majority of the citizens must be directed and\nco-ordinated by the most competent minds somehow; and that the process\nof direction must have some system at the back of it, by means of which\nthe orders issued to each labourer can be enforced--this system being\neither a continuation of that which is in existence now, or another\nwhich would to most people be in many ways more distasteful.\n\nThe socialists of to-day, in admitting that such is the case, have at\nlast placed themselves in a line with the sober realities of life, and\nin doing so have assimilated their own analysis of production to the\nanalysis set forth in the beginning of the present volume.\n\nApart from the fact that, according to their constructive programme,\nprivate capitalism would be abolished, and the sole capitalist would be\nthe state, the socialistic system of production, as they have now come\nto conceive of it, would, in respect of the vital forces involved, be\nmerely the existing system continued under another name, with a\ndirecting minority composed of exceptional men on the one hand, and a\nmajority composed of directed men on the other. But in the minds of many\nsocialistic thinkers the simplicity of the situation is obscured by the\nvagueness of the ideas which they associate with the phrase \"the state.\"\nFor them these ideas are like a fog, into which private capitalism\ndisappears, and in which the forces represented by it lose all definite\ncharacter. The state, however, is in reality nothing but a collection of\nindividuals; and if the state, besides being a political body, is to\nbecome the sole industrial capitalist also, state capitalism, just like\nprivate capitalism, will succeed or fail in proportion to the talents of\nthose to whom capital is intrusted as a means of directing the\nlabourers.\n\nIf, then, in any capitalistic country, such as Great Britain or America,\nthe business of production could become socialised to-morrow, the best\nthat could possibly happen would be the transformation of the present\nemployers into so many state officials, who industrially would be the\nstate itself. The only difference would be that they would have lost all\npersonal interest in the pecuniary results of the talents which they\nwould still be expected to exercise.[9]\n\nNow, if such a transformation of circumstances could be suddenly\neffected to-morrow, without any corresponding change in the dispositions\nof these men themselves, there is theoretically no reason for supposing\nthat the process of production might not continue to be as efficient as\nit is now, so long as this precise situation lasted. But it could not\nlast. It would be transitory in its very nature. The present generation\nof industrial directors would die, and in order that the efficiency of\nthe state as the director of labour might be maintained, other men would\nhave to be discovered who were possessed of equal ability in the first\nplace, and who in the second could be trusted or compelled to use it\nunremittingly to the utmost, in the absence of the main motive which has\nactuated such men hitherto.\n\nApart from the problems involved in these two requirements, neither the\ntheory of production which is put forward, nor the productive system\nwhich is advocated, by the intellectual socialists of to-day, contains\nanything with which theoretically the most uncompromising of their\nopponents could quarrel. It is on these two problems that everything\nwill be found to turn--one being the problem of how, under the\nconditions which socialism would introduce, the ablest men could be\ndiscovered, and invested according to their efficiency with the\nrequisite industrial authority; the other being the problem of how,\nunder the same conditions, it would be possible to secure from such men\nthat full exertion of their talents, on which the material prosperity of\nthe entire community would depend.\n\nFor socialists these two problems may be said to be practically new. So\nlong as socialism based itself on the Marxian theory of production, the\nselection, and the subsequent conduct of the men who would compose the\nindustrial state presented no appreciable difficulties. For the state\nwould, according to this theory, be in no sense the director of the\nlabourers; it would merely be their humble servant. It would be like an\nold woman who sat all day long in a barn, counting, sorting, and making\nup into equal shares the different products brought in to her by her\nsons, who worked out of her sight in a dozen different fields; or,\nto quote the words of one of my late socialistic correspondents,\nthe functions of the industrial state would be \"simply\nindustrial-clerical.\" The industrial state would consist of clerks and\nshop-boys, the former of whom added up accounts, while the latter\nweighed, sorted, and handed out goods over a counter. If the industrial\nstate were to be nothing more than this, the selection of an adequate\npersonnel would doubtless present no difficulties. But as soon as the\nsocialistic theory recognises that the industrial state, instead of\nbeing the mere receiver and dispenser of products produced by labour,\nwould represent the intellectual forces by which every process of labour\nis directed, the problems of how the individuals who compose the state\nare to be chosen, and of how the continuous exertion of their highest\nfaculties is to be secured, become the fundamental problems which\nsocialists are called upon to consider.\n\nIf we assume that under the regime of socialism a nation could always\nsecure, as the official directors of its labour, the men whose ability\nwould enable them to direct it to the best advantage, and could force\nthese men to exert their exceptional faculties to the utmost, the\nexaction of obedience to their orders from the common labouring\ncitizens, let me say once more, would present no theoretical difficulty.\nBut the task of securing the requisite ability itself is of a wholly\ndifferent kind. Let us consider why.\n\nAny one armed with an adequate implement of authority, whether the\ncontrol of the means of subsistence or the power of inflicting\npunishment, can secure, within limits, from any ordinary man the\npunctual performance of any ordinary manual task, and the performance of\nit in a prescribed way; but he is able to do this for the following\nreasons only: So far as ordinary labour is concerned, any one man, by\nsimply observing another, can tell with approximate accuracy what the\nother man can do--whether he can trundle a wheel-barrow, hit a nail on\nthe head, file a casting, or lay brick on brick. Further, the director\nof labour knows the precise nature of the result which he requires in\neach case that the individual labourer shall accomplish. Hence he can\nexact from each labourer conformity to the injunctions laid on him, in\nrespect both of the general character and the particular application of\nhis efforts. But in respect of the faculties distinctive of those\nexceptional men by whom alone ordinary labour can be directed to the\nbest advantage, both these conditions are wanting. It is impossible to\ntell that any man of ability possesses any exceptional faculties for\ndirecting labour at all, unless he himself chooses to show them; and,\nindeed, until circumstances supply him with some motive for showing\nthem, he may very well not be aware that he possesses such faculties\nhimself. Moreover, even if he gives the world some reason to suspect\ntheir existence, the world at large will not know what he can do with\nthem, and will consequently be unable to impose on him any definite\ntask. A pressgang could have forced Columbus to labour as a common\nseaman; but not all the population of Europe could have forced him to\ndiscover a world beyond the Atlantic; for the mass of his\ncontemporaries, until his enterprise proved successful, obstinately\nrefused to believe that there was such a world to discover.\n\nThe men, therefore, on the exercise of whose directive ability the\nproductive efficiency of a modern nation depends, would occupy, with\nregard to any nation organised on socialistic principles, a position\nfundamentally different from that of the ordinary labourer. The exercise\nof their distinctive powers, unlike those of the labourer, could never\nbe secured by coercion; because neither the nation at large, nor any\nbody of representatives, could possibly know that these powers existed\nuntil the possessors of them chose to reveal the secret. They could not\nbe made to reveal it. They could only be induced to do so; and they\ncould only be induced to do so by a society which was so constituted as\nto offer for an exceptional performance some exceptional reward, just as\na reward is offered for evidence against an unknown murderer. The reward\nat present offered them is the possession of some exceptional share of\nthe wealth to the production of which their efforts have exceptionally\ncontributed; and, hence, since it is the object of all socialistic\nschemes to render the achievement of such a reward impossible, we shall\nfind that the ultimate problem for socialists of the modern school is\nhow to discover another which in practice will be equally efficacious.\n\nBut though this is the ultimate problem, it is very far from being the\nonly one which the theory of socialism in its modern form raises.\nDirective ability, which is a compound of many faculties, varies greatly\nin degree and kind. Its value, if tested by the results of its actual\napplication to labour, would in some cases be immense, in other cases\nvery small, and in others it would be a minus quantity. Thus, even if we\nsuppose that the exercise of it is so far its own reward that all who\nbelieve themselves to possess it--and these are a very large\nnumber--will, for the mere pleasure of exercising it, be eager to gain\nthe positions which will make its exercise possible, the problem would\nremain of how to discriminate those who would, as industrial directors,\nachieve the greatest successes, from those who would bring about nothing\nbut relative or absolute failure. This problem of how, under a regime of\nsocialism, ability could be so tested that the practical means of\ndirection could be granted to or withheld from it, according to its\nactual efficiency, is the problem which we will consider first; for\nthough of secondary importance as compared with the problem of motive,\nit is in more immediate connection with the details of daily business.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[8] The economic condition of the great mass of the population, which\nthis \"up-to-date\" socialist contemplates, is precisely analogous to that\nof the Helots in Sparta, whose subsistence was secured independently of\ntheir specific services, whilst their services to the directing class\nwere wrung from them by a system of iron discipline.\n\n[9] While these pages were in the hands of the printers, a work was\npublished by an American socialist, in which it is asserted that the\nsocialisation of America would consist at first of this precise\nprocess--namely, the conversion of all the existing active employers and\ndirectors of labour into the salaried servants of some state department.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nPROXIMATE DIFFICULTIES. ABLE MEN AS A CORPORATION OF STATE OFFICIALS\n\nFor the moment, then, we will waive the problem of motive altogether; we\nwill assume that a society which denied to its able men any pecuniary\nreward proportionate to the magnitude of its products could provide them\nwith a motive of some kind--we need not inquire what--which would prompt\nthem still to exert themselves as eagerly as they do now; and we will\nmerely consider how, a multitude of such men being given, the most\nefficient of them could be constantly selected as the official directors\nof labour, and the rest, in proportion to their inefficiency, be either\ndismissed or excluded. In order to realise the difficulties which, in\nthis respect, socialism would have to face, let us consider the manner\nin which the problem is solved now.\n\nUnder the system of private capitalism it solves itself by an automatic\nprocess. In order that any man may direct the labour of other men, he\nmust, under that system, be the possessor or controller of so much\nwage-capital. Now this capital--this implement of direction--in\nproportion as it is employed, disappears, and is reproduced only by a\nsubsequent sale of the products resulting from the labour in the\ndirection of which it has been expended. Thus a man, we will say,\ninvents a new engine for motor-cars, and devotes to the production of\ntwenty engines of the kind all the capital which he possesses--namely,\ntwo thousand guineas. Apart from the raw material out of which the\nengines are to be constructed, his whole expenditure will consist in\npaying wages to certain labourers, on condition that they work up this\nmetal in a manner which he prescribes to them. For the raw metal he\npays, we will say, a hundred pounds, or the odd shillings of the\nguineas. He pays to twenty labourers a hundred pounds apiece as wages;\nand the result is twenty engines. If the engines are successful, and if\nthe public will give him a hundred and fifty guineas for each of them,\nthe man has got his entire capital back again, with a thousand guineas\nadded to it, and can continue his direction of labour by means of wages,\non the same lines, and on a much more extended scale. But if the\nengines, when tried, develop some inherent defect, and he consequently\ncan sell none of them, he may still, perhaps, get back the price of the\nraw metal--a petty sum, insufficient for his own needs--but his whole\nwage-capital will be gone, and with it his power of directing any\nfurther labour in the future. In other words, under the system of\nprivate capitalism, if labour has been directed by any man in an\nunsuccessful way, the resulting products being such that nobody cares to\nbuy them, or in exact proportion as this result is approached, the man's\nimplement of direction passes out of his hands altogether; and the\nsimple fact of his having directed labour ill deprives him of the means\nof directing or of misdirecting it again.\n\nBut under a system of state socialism the situation would be wholly\nchanged. Private capitalism is, in this respect, self-acting, and acts\nwith absolute accuracy, because wage-capital being divided into a\nmultitude of independent reservoirs, its waste at any one point brings\nabout its own remedy. Each reservoir is like a mill-pond which\nautomatically begins to dry up whenever its contents are employed in\nactuating a useless mill; and the man who has wasted his water is able\nto waste no more. But the moment the divisions between the reservoirs\nare broken down, and the separate capitals contained in them become, as\nwould be the case under socialism, fused together like the waters of a\nsingle lake, the director of labour who so misused any portion of this\nfluid stock that the products of labour, as directed by him, failed to\nreplace the wages, would not thereby be incapacitated from continuing\nhis misdirections further; for the wage-capital dissipated by his\nincompetence could, under these conditions, always be replaced, and its\nloss more or less concealed, by fresh supplies which had a really\ndifferent origin. It was only in consequence of conditions resembling\nthese that the London County Council was enabled to continue for so long\nits service of Thames steamboats, in spite of the fact that the labour\nthus employed failed to reproduce, by the functions which it performed\nfor the public, more than a fraction of capital which was necessarily\nconsumed in its maintenance. Had labour been thus misdirected by any\nprivate capitalist, his misdirection of it would have soon been checked\nby his loss of the means of continuing it; but the County Council, with\nthe purse of the community at its back, was able, by taxing the\nindustrial successes of others, to refinance and prolong its own\nindustrial failure.\n\nSocialists wholly overlook the importance of these considerations. Many\nof them, for example, in the case of the London County Council's\nsteamboats, defended that enterprise in spite of its financial failure,\non the ground that the steamboats were a convenience to certain\ntravellers at all events, who in all probability were persons of modest\nmeans, while the loss would be made good out of the pockets of the\nratepayers who were presumably rich. But even if this argument were\nplausible as applied to a state of society in which the incomes of some\nmen were greater than those of others, it would be absolutely\ninapplicable to conditions such as those desired by socialists, under\nwhich the incomes of all would be fractions, approximately equal, of a\ncommon stock to the production of which all contributed. For it must\nsurely be apparent to even the meanest intelligence that whatever\ndiminished the aggregate amount to be divided would diminish the\nfraction of it which falls to the share of each; and it ought to be\nequally apparent, though to many people it is not, that the labour of\nany labourer which is directed in such a way that the men consume more\narticles of utility than they produce, or fail to produce as many as\nthey would do if directed better, has this precise effect of diminishing\nthe divisible total, by making it either less than it has been or less\nthan it would be otherwise.[10]\n\nThus, in cases such as that of the London County Council's steamboats,\nthe efficiency of labour is so lessened by incompetent direction that\nthe labourers employed can only perform for society one-half of the\nservices which society must perform for them. For every hour which they\nspend in conveying ten men on the river, twenty men must work to provide\nthem with food and clothing. So long as fortunes are unequal, and depend\non individual effort and enterprise, such losses may be localised and\nobscured in a hundred different ways; but the moment all fortunes, as\nthey would be under the regime of socialism, were reduced to specific\nfractions of the aggregate product of the community, any decline in the\nefficiency of the labour of any single group would result in a\ndiminution of the income of every member of all the others. Wherever ten\nmen were employed to do what might have been done by nine, the\ncontribution to the general stock would be less by ten per cent. than it\nmight have been. If ten men were employed in making chairs, which might\nhave been made by nine had their labour been better directed, the\ncommunity would lose the cushions which in that case would have been\nmade by the tenth. And what holds good of labour in respect of its\nproductive efficiency holds good of it also in respect of the character\nof the goods produced. If ten men were employed in producing forty\nloaves when all that could be eaten was twenty, not only would the\nremaining twenty be wasted, but the community would lose the butter\nwhich might have been made instead of them. The importance, therefore,\nto the community as a whole of having every branch of its labour\ndirected by those men, and by those men only, whose ability would raise\nit to the highest pitch of efficiency, and cause it to produce only such\ngoods and such quantities of them as would satisfy from moment to moment\nthe needs and tastes of the population, would, under a regime of\nsocialism, be even more general and immediate than it is at the present\nday; and yet at the same time, for reasons to which we will now return,\nthe difficulty of securing the requisite ability would be increased.\n\nIt is impossible to illustrate in detail the situation which would thus\narise; for the state, as sole capitalist and sole director of labour, is\nan institution which imaginably might take various forms; and\nsocialists, in this case exhibiting a commendable prudence, have\nrefrained from committing themselves to any detailed programme. The\nsocialistic state, however, having to perform a double\nfunction--namely, that of political governor and universal director of\nindustry--would necessarily be divided into two distinct bodies. One of\nthese, consisting of statesmen and legislators, would, we may assume, be\nelected by the votes of the people. But the other, consisting of\nindustrial experts--the inventors, the chemists, the electricians, the\nnaval engineers, the organisers of labour--might conceivably be in the\nfirst or the second of the two following positions: They might either be\nleft free, as they are under the existing system, to do severally the\nbest they can, according to their own lights, in estimating what goods\nor services the population wants, and in satisfying these wants with\nsuch increasing economy that new goods and services might be continually\nadded to the old. They might be left free to promote or dismiss\nsubordinates, to fill up vacancies, and take new men into partnership,\nvery much as the heads of private firms do now. Or else they might be\nliable, in greater or less degree, to removal or supersession, and\ninterference with their technical operations, on the part of the\npolitical body, whose members, while representing the general ideas of\nthe community, would presumably not be experts in the direction of its\nparticular industries.\n\nNow, let us suppose first that the official directors of labour are left\npractically free to follow their own devices. The situation which will\narise may be illustrated by the following imaginary case: The nation,\nlet us say, requires two sister ships. They are built in different\nyards, under two different directors, and a thousand labourers are\nemployed in the construction of each; but while the labourers who work\nunder one director take a year to complete their task, those who work\nunder the other complete theirs within ten months. This would mean for\nthe community that, through the inferiority of the former of these two\nofficials, two months' labour of the national shipwrights had been lost;\nand the public interest would require that the industrial regiment\ncommanded by him should as quickly as possible pass out of his control\ninto that of an official who could render it more efficient than he. And\nunder the existing system this, as we have seen already, is precisely\nwhat sooner or later would be brought about automatically. The\ninefficient director, in proportion to his relative inefficiency, loses\nhis customers, and can direct labour no longer, or is obliged to direct\nit on a very much reduced scale. But if each director of labour owed, as\nhe would do under socialism, his means of directing it, not to the\nresults of his individual efficiency, but to a single common\nsource--namely, to the collective capital of the country or the forcible\nauthority of the law--there is nothing in the fact that one constructor\nof ships wastes labour in constructing them which another constructor\nwould have saved, to prevent him from continuing in his post, or even to\ninsure that he will vacate it in favour of an abler man, whether an\nofficial rival or otherwise, as soon as such a man is available.\n\nThere is also this further fact to be noted. Although we are assuming\nthat the socialistic directors of labour will exert their talents to the\nutmost without requiring the stimulus of a proportionate reward in\nmoney, we must necessarily assume that they will value their posts for\nsome reason or other just as much as they would do were the largest\nemoluments attached to them. Consequently we may, condescending to\nvulgar language, say, as a certainty, that they will do their very best\nto stick to them. All these official persons, as contrasted with the\nlabouring public, will occupy positions of similar and desirable\nprivilege; and while their latent rivalry among themselves will be\nhampered in the manner just indicated, they will none of them be\ninclined to welcome any further rivalry from without. If the least\nefficient of our two naval constructors could not be forced by the fact\nof his relative inefficiency to hand over all or any portion of his\nauthority to the other, and would certainly not be likely to do so of\nhis own free will, it is still less likely that either would be willing\nto make such a sacrifice in favour of a man outside the privileged\nranks, who desired an opportunity of demonstrating his practical\nsuperiority to both.\n\nUnder a system, in short, like that which we are now contemplating, the\nability of the ablest directors might, in each branch of industry, raise\nthe efficiency of the labour directed by themselves to as high a pitch\nas that to which it could be raised by the competition of to-day. But\nthe successes of the ablest men would have no tendency to\nself-extension. The ablest men would do better than the less able, but\nwould have no tendency to displace them; and the ablest and the least\nable members of the industrial oligarchy alike would instinctively\noppose, and would also be in a position to check, the practical\ndevelopment of any competition from without.\n\nThat this is no fanciful estimate can be shown by an appeal to facts. We\nmay take as an example the case of the British post-office. The\ninefficient transmission of letters some twenty years ago in London\nprovoked an effort to supplement it by a service of private messengers.\nThe post-office authorities were instantly up in arms, ready to nip this\nenterprise in the bud, and forcibly prevent any other human being from\ndoing what they were still, to all appearance, determined not to do\nthemselves.[11] Then, as a grudging concession, permission to transmit\nletters with a promptitude which the post-office still declined to\nemulate was accorded to a company on condition that for each letter\ncarrier the post-office should be paid as it would have been had it\ncarried the letter itself; and thus there was established at last the\ninstitution of the Boy Messengers.\n\nSimilar examples are afforded by the conduct of the state in France,\nwhere the manufacture of tobacco and matches are both of them state\nmonopolies. To say that the tobacco produced by the French state is\nunsmokable, and that the matches produced by it will not light a candle,\nwould no doubt be an exaggeration; but they are both inferior to the\nproducts which private enterprise could, if left to itself, produce at\nthe same price. And private enterprise is, indeed, not wholly\nsuppressed. Excellent tobacco and matches, both of private manufacture,\nare allowed to be sold in France; but the producers of both are\nartificially handicapped by having to pay to the state, on every box or\nevery pound sold, either the whole or part of the profit which the state\nitself would have made by selling an equal quantity of its own inferior\narticles.\n\nThe very fact, indeed, that the state, as a producer, or a renderer of\npublic services, such as letter-carrying, has thus to protect itself\nagainst the competition of private enterprise, is sufficient evidence of\nthe difficulties which a state organisation encounters in securing\nindustrial ability which shall be constantly of the highest kind, and\nalso of its inevitable tendency to hamper, if not to stifle, the\ndevelopment and the practical activity of superior ability elsewhere.\nAnd if these difficulties and this tendency are appreciable in\nstate-directed industries now, when the area of direction is small and\nstrictly limited, the reader may easily imagine how incalculably more\nformidable they would become if extended, as socialism would extend\nthem, to the activities of the entire community.\n\nWe have thus far been considering the position of the directors of\nsocialised industry on the assumption that they would be free to follow\nthe dictates of their own several intelligences, without any technical\ninterference from officials of any other kind. Let us now consider the\nalternative which, in any socialistic society, would most closely\ncoincide with fact. This is the assumption that the official directors\nof labour would not be technical autocrats, but would be subject to the\ncontrol of their brother officials, the statesmen, who represented the\ngreat mass of the people.\n\nNow, no doubt the intervention of a body of this kind might obviate some\nof the difficulties on which we have just been dwelling. It might lead\nto the removal of some directors of labour who were not only relatively\ninefficient, but were positively and notoriously mischievous; but it\nwould introduce difficulties greater than those it obviated. For while\nthe industrial officials would, in exact proportion to their efficiency,\nembody the special expertness peculiar to a gifted few, the political\nofficials, in proportion as they represented their electorate, would\nembody the preponderating opinions and the general intelligence of the\nmany. The political officials, therefore, could, from the very nature\nof the case, never represent any ideas or condition of knowledge which\nappreciably transcended or conflicted with those of the least\nintelligent; and the logical result would be that no industrial\nimprovements could in a socialistic community be initiated by the\nhighest intelligence, if they went beyond what could be apprehended and\nconsciously approved of by the lowest.\n\nAnd here again, though our estimate is only general and speculative--for\nit deals with a state of things which at present has no existence--we\ncan turn to historical facts for illustrations of its substantial truth.\nFor example, if in the days of Columbus all the capital of Europe and\nthe control of its entire labour had been vested in a government which\nrepresented the all but universal opinion of all the western nations,\nthe discovery of America would have obviously been beyond the limits of\npossibility. It was rendered possible only because Columbus secured two\npatrons who, resembling in this respect far-seeing investors of to-day,\ndared to be original, and provided him with the necessary ships and\ncontrol over the necessary labour. Or let us take the case of the iron\nindustry of the modern world. This industry, in its vast modern\ndevelopments, depends entirely on the discovery made in England of a\nmethod by which iron might be smelted with coal in place of wood. The\ncompleted discovery was due to a succession of solitary men, beginning\nwith Dud Dudley in the reign of James I., and ending a century later\nwith Darby of Coalbrookdale. Practically these heroic men had all their\ncontemporaries against them. Public opinion attacked them through\nprivate persecution and violence. The apathy and vacillation of\ngovernments left them without defence; and had governments then\nrepresented public opinion completely, and had also controlled all\nlabour and capital, the discovery in question, which was retarded for\nthree generations, would in all probability have never been made at all.\nArkwright's experience with regard to his spinning-frame was similar.\nHis epoch-making invention was in danger of being altogether lost,\nbecause the general opinion of the capitalists of his day was against\nit; and if all capital had been vested in a representative state, to the\nexclusion of the far-seeing individuals who eventually came to his\nassistance, its loss would have been almost certain. The successful\ndevelopment of the automobile did not take place till yesterday--and\nwhy? A steam-driven vehicle ran in Cornwall before the end of the\neighteenth century; but the state and public opinion both condemned it\nas dangerous; and all further progress in the matter was checked for\nmore than twenty years. Then again private enterprise asserted itself,\nbut only to suffer precisely the same fate. Steam-driven omnibuses plied\nbetween Paddington and Westminster. Steam-driven stage-coaches plied on\nthe Bath road. But the state and public opinion were again in obstinate\nopposition; these vehicles were crushed out of existence by the\nimposition of monstrous tolls; and progress was checked a second time\nand for a longer period still. An instance yet more modern is that\nsupplied by the electric lighting of London. The electric lighting of\nLondon was retarded for ten years solely by the attitude which the state\nassumed towards private enterprise.\n\nIt is needless to multiply illustrations of this kind further; for my\nobject is not to show that the state, as it exists at present, is\nnecessarily inimical to private enterprise as a whole. It is not, for it\nhas not the power to be. But the fact that even now, when its powers are\nso strictly limited and its points of direct contact with industrial\nenterprise are so few, tendencies of the kind develop themselves with\nsuch marked practical consequences is enough to show the reality and\nmagnitude of the evils which would ensue if a body, which reflected on\nthe one hand the opinions of the average many, and on the other the\nindividual ability of a few, specially privileged and pledged to their\nown methods, were the sole controller of all manual labour whatsoever,\nthe virtual owner of all the implements which exist at present, the sole\ndeterminer of the forms which such implements shall assume in the\nfuture, and also of the kinds and quantities of the consumable goods\nwhich the implements and the labourers together shall from day to day\nproduce.\n\nBut the nature and scope of the effects which would be incident to any\ngeneral absorption, such as that contemplated by socialists, of\nproductive enterprise by the state, will be yet more clearly seen if we\nturn to a kind of production on which I have dwelt already, as affording\nthe simplest and most luminous example possible of the respective parts\nplayed in the modern world by ordinary manual labour and the exceptional\nability which directs it. This is the case of books, or of other printed\npublications. Many years ago the English radical Charles Bradlaugh urged\nin a debate with a then prominent socialist that under socialism no\nliterary expression of free thought would be practicable, and I cannot\ndo more than accentuate his lucid and unanswerable arguments. The state,\nbeing controller of all the implements of production, a private press\nwould be as illegal as the dies used by a forger. Nobody could issue a\nbook, a newspaper, or even a leaflet, unless the use of a state press\nwere allowed him by the state authorities, together with the disposal of\nthe labour of the requisite number of compositors. Now, it is clear that\nthe state could not bind itself to put presses and compositors at the\nservice of every one of its citizens who was anxious to see himself in\nprint. There would have to be selection and rejection of some drastic\nkind. The state would have to act as universal publisher's reader. What\nwould happen under these circumstances to purely imaginative literature\nwe need not here inquire; but when the question was one of expressing\ncontroversial opinions as to science, religion, morals, and especially\nsocial politics, what would happen is evident. The state would be able\nto refuse, and it could not do otherwise than refuse, to print anything\nwhich expressed opinions out of harmony with those which were\npredominant among its own members. In so far as these members reflected\nthe opinions of the majority, they would never publish an attack on\nerrors which they themselves accepted as vital truths. In so far as they\nowed their positions to certain real or supposed superiorities they\nwould never publish any criticism of their own methods by men whom they\nwould necessarily regard as mischievous and mistaken inferiors. In\nshort, whether the state acted in this matter as the ultra-superior\nperson, or as the ultra-popular person, the result would be just the\nsame. The focalised prejudices of the majority, or the privileged\nself-confidence of a certain select minority, would deprive independent\nthought in any other quarter of any means of expressing itself either by\nbook or journal, and by thus depriving it of its voice would place it at\nan artificial disadvantage more effectual as a means of repression than\nthe dungeons of the Inquisition itself. It would be checked as\ncompletely as the higher criticism of the Bible would have been if the\nonly printer in the whole world were the Pope and the only publishing\nbusiness were managed by the College of Cardinals.\n\nAnd what, under a regime of socialism, would be true of human thought,\na-seeking to embody itself in printed books or newspapers, would be\nequally true of it as applied to the methods of industry, and seeking to\nembody itself in multiplied or improved commodities.\n\nSuch, then, are the disadvantages which socialism, as contrasted with\nthe existing system, would introduce in connection with the problem of\nhow to detect, and how, having detected it, to invest with suitable\npowers, the men whose ability is, at any given moment, calculated to\nraise labour to the highest pitch of productiveness--how to give power\nto these, and to take it away from others in exact proportion as their\ntalents, as exhibited in its practical results, fall short of the\nmaximum which is at the time obtainable.\n\nThis problem, as we have seen already, the existing system solves by its\nmachinery of private competition, and of independent capitals, which\nautomatically increase the powers of the ablest directors of labour, and\nconcurrently decrease or extinguish those of the less able. Socialism,\nwith its collective capital, and its able men reduced or elevated to the\nrank of state officials, while not obviating, but on the contrary\nemphasising the necessity for placing labour under the highest directive\nability, or, in other words, the necessity for competition among able\nmen, would dislocate the only machinery by which such competition can be\nmade effective; and, if it did not destroy the efficiency of the highest\nability altogether, would reduce this to a minimum, and confine it\nwithin the narrowest limits.\n\nIn this chapter, however, we have been dealing with the machinery only.\nWe have been assuming the unabated activity of the powers by which the\nmachinery is to be driven. That is to say, we have been assuming that\nevery man who possesses, or imagines himself to possess, any exceptional\ngift for directing labour--whether as an inventor, a man of science, an\norganiser, or in any other capacity--would be no less eager, under the\ncircumstances with which socialism would surround him, to develop and\nexert his faculties than he is at the present day. We will now pass on\nto the question of how far this assumption is correct. The question of\nmachinery is secondary. It is a question of detail only; for if there is\nno power in the background by which the machinery may be driven, it will\nnot make much difference in the result whether the machinery be bad or\ngood.\n\nAnd here once more we shall find that the socialists of to-day agree\nwith us; and in passing on to the question now before us, we shall be\nquitting a region of speculations which can be only of a general kind\n(for they refer to social arrangements whose details are not definitely\nspecified), and we shall find ourselves confronted by a variety of ideas\nand principles which, however confused they may be in the minds of those\nwho enunciate them, we shall have no difficulty ourselves in reducing to\nlogical order.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[10] That such is the case can be seen easily enough by imagining a\nsocialistic community consisting of twenty men, who require and consume\nonly one article, bread. Each man, to keep him alive, requires one loaf\ndaily; but to eat two would be a comfort to him, and to eat three would\nbe luxury. The community is divided into two groups of ten men each, one\nman in each group directing the labour of the others. We will start with\nsupposing that these two directors are men of equal and also of the\nhighest ability, and that each of the groups, under these favourable\nconditions, is enabled to produce daily an output of thirty loaves. The\ntotal output of both in this case amounts to sixty, which equally\ndivided yields to everybody the luxurious number of three. Let us next\nsuppose that the director of one group dies, that his place is taken by\na man of inferior powers, and that this group, as a consequence of his\nless efficient direction, instead of producing thirty loaves can produce\nno more than ten. Now, although this falling off in production has\noccurred in one group only, the loss which results from it is felt by\nthe entire community. The total output has sunk from sixty loaves to\nforty; and the members of the group which retains its old efficiency, no\nless than those of the group which has lost so much of it, have to be\ncontent, with a dividend, not of three loaves, but two. Finally, let us\nsuppose that, owing to a continued deterioration in management, the ten\nmen of whom the first group is composed are able to produce daily, not\nten loaves, but only five. That is to say, the number of loaves which\nthey produce comes to no more than half of the minimum they are obliged\nto eat. Here it is obvious that, unless one-half of the population is to\ndie, it can only be kept alive by being given a supply of loaves which,\nin consequence of its own inefficiency, must be taken out of the mouths\nof others.\n\n[11] A similar drama enacted itself in London more than two centuries\nago. Private enterprise established a penny post. The state killed it,\nand deprived the metropolis of this service for a hundred and fifty\nyears.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE ULTIMATE DIFFICULTY.\nSPECULATIVE ATTEMPTS TO MINIMISE IT\n\nWhen socialism, says Mr. Sidney Webb, shall have abolished all other\nmonopolies, there will still remain to be dealt with the most formidable\nmonopoly of all--namely, \"the natural monopoly of business ability,\" or\n\"the special ability and energy with which some persons are born.\" The\nservices of these monopolists, he sees and fully admits, would be as\nessential to a socialistic as they are to any other community which\ndesires to prosper according to modern standards. He sees and admits\nalso that these exceptional men will not continuously exert or even\ndevelop their talents unless society can supply them with some adequate\nmotive or stimulus. Accordingly, since he maintains that no scheme of\nsociety would be socialistic in any practical sense which did not\ncompletely, or at least approximately, eliminate the motive mainly\noperative among such men at present--namely, that supplied by the\npossibility of exceptional economic gain--he fairly faces the fact that\nsome motive of a different kind will have to be discovered by socialists\nwhich shall take the place of this.\n\nI mention Mr. Webb in particular merely because he represents the views\nwhich all intellectual socialists are coming to hold likewise. This\nspecific problem of how to provide the natural monopolists of business\nability with all adequate motive to develop and exercise their talents\nis engaging more and more the attention of the higher socialistic\nthinkers; and if we take together the passages in their writings which\ndeal with it, it has by this time a voluminous literature of its own.\n\nWe shall find that the arguments brought forward by them in this\nconnection divide themselves broadly into two classes, one of which\ndeals with the problem of motive directly, while the other class aims at\npreparing the way to its solution by showing in advance that its\ndifficulties are far less formidable than they appear to be. Without\ninsisting on the manner in which they are urged by individual writers,\nwe will take these two classes of argument in the logical order which\nthey assume when we consider their general character.\n\nThese preparatory arguments, with which we will accordingly begin, while\nadmitting that some men are undoubtedly more able than others, aim at\nshowing that the superiority of such men to their fellows is not so\ngreat as it seems to be, and that any claims made by them to exceptional\nreward on account of it consequently tend to reduce themselves to very\nmodest proportions.\n\nThese arguments possess a peculiar interest owing to the fact that they\nhave not originated with socialistic thinkers at all, but have been\ndrawn by them from the evolutionary philosophy of the nineteenth century\ngenerally, in so far as it was applied to historical and sociological\nquestions. The dominant idea which distinguished this school of thought\nwas the insignificance of the individual as compared with society past\nand present. Thus Herbert Spencer, who was its most systematic exponent,\nopens his work on the _Study of Sociology_ with an elaborate attack on\nwhat he calls \"The Great Man Theory,\" according to which the explanation\nof the main events of history is to be sought in the influence of\nexceptional or great men--the men who, in vulgar language, are spoken of\nas \"historical characters.\" Such an explanation, said Spencer, is no\nexplanation at all. Great men, however great, are not isolated\nphenomena. Whatever they may do as the \"proximate initiators\" of change,\nthey themselves \"have their chief cause in the generations they have\ndescended from,\" and depend for the influence which is commonly\nattributed to their actions, on \"the multitudinous conditions\" of the\ngeneration to which they belong. Thus Laplace, he says, could not have\ngot far with his calculations if it had not been for the line of\nmathematicians who went before him. Caesar could not have got very far\nwith his conquests if a great military organisation had not been ready\nto his hand; nor could Shakespeare have written his dramas if he had not\nlived in a country already enriched with traditions and a highly\ndeveloped language.\n\nBut though it was Herbert Spencer who invested these arguments with\ntheir most systematic form, and gave them their definite place in the\ntheory of evolution as a whole, they were widely diffused already among\nhis immediate predecessors, as we may see by the following passage taken\nfrom an unlikely quarter. \"It is,\" says Macaulay, in his _Essay on\nDryden_, anticipating the exact phraseology of Spencer, \"the age that\nmakes the man, not the man that makes the age.... The inequalities of\nthe intellect, like the inequalities of the surface of the globe, bear\nso small a proportion to the mass, that in calculating its great\nrevolutions they may safely be neglected.\" And Macaulay is merely\nexpressing a doctrine distinctive of his time--a doctrine which, to take\none further example, dominated in a notable way the entire thought of\nBuckle. This doctrine, which, to a greater or less degree, merges the\norganism in its environment, or the individual, however great, in\nsociety, has been seized on by the more recent socialists just as the\ntheory of Ricardo, with regard to labour and value, was seized on by\nKarl Marx, and has been adapted by them to their own purposes.\n\nThus Mr. Bellamy, whose book, _Looking Backward_, descriptive of a\nsocialistic Utopia, achieved a circulation beyond that of the most\npopular novels, declares that \"nine hundred and ninety-nine parts out of\nthe thousand of the produce of every man are the result of his social\ninheritance and environment\"; and Mr. Kidd, a socialist in sentiment if\nnot in definite theory, urges that the comparative insignificance, the\ncomparative commonness, and dependence for their efficiency on\ncontemporary social circumstances, of the talents which we are\naccustomed to associate with the greatest inventions and discoveries, is\nproved by the fact that some of the most important of these have been\nmade by persons who, \"working quite independently, have arrived at like\nresults almost simultaneously. Thus rival and independent claims,\" he\nproceeds, \"have been made for the discovery of the differential\ncalculus, the invention of the steam-engine, the methods of spectrum\nanalysis, the telephone, the telegraph, as well as many other\ndiscoveries.\" Further, to these arguments a yet more definite point has\nbeen added by the contention that, as socialist writers put it,\n\"inventions and discoveries, when once made, become common property,\"\nthe mass of mankind being cut off from the use of them only by patents\nor other artificial restrictions.\n\nThe aim of socialists in pursuing this line of reasoning is obvious. It\nis to demonstrate, or rather to suggest, that \"the monopolists of\nbusiness ability,\" in spite of their comparative rarity and the\nimportance of the services performed by them, are far from being so\nrare or so superior to the mass of their contemporaries as they seem to\nbe, that their achievements owe far more than appears on the surface to\nthe co-operation of the average members of society, and that\nconsequently a socialistic society could justly demand and practically\nsecure their services on far easier terms than those which they command\nat present.\n\nAnd to such a conclusion the principles of modern evolutionary\nsociology, as unanimously interpreted by the philosophers of the\nnineteenth century, may be fairly said to lend the entire weight of\ntheir prestige. Let us, then, consider more carefully what these\nprinciples are, with a view to understanding the true scope of their\nsignificance. We shall find that, although undoubtedly true in\nthemselves, the scope of their significance has been very imperfectly\nunderstood by the great thinkers to whose talents their elucidation has\nbeen due; that these thinkers, in their eagerness to establish a new\ntruth, have at the same time introduced a new confusion; and that it is\nfrom the confusion of a truth with a falsehood, rather than from the\ntruth itself, that the socialists of to-day have been here drawing their\ninspiration.\n\nThe confusion in question arises from a failure to see that sociology is\nconcerned with two distinct sets of phenomena, or with one set regarded\nfrom two absolutely distinct standpoints. Thus it is constantly said\nthat man, in the course of ages, has developed civilised societies and\nthe various arts of life--that, beginning as an animal only a little\nhigher than the monkey, he gradually became a builder of cities, a\nmaster of the secrets of nature, a philosopher, a poet, a painter of\ndivine pictures. And from a certain point of view this language is\nadequate. If what we desire to do is to estimate, as speculative\nphilosophers, the significance of the human race in relation to the\nuniverse or its Author, by considering its origin on this planet, and\nits subsequent fortunes hitherto, what interests us is man in the mass,\nor societies, and not individuals. But if we are interested in any\nproblem of practical life--such, for example, as how to cure cancer, or\ncut a navigable canal through a broad and mountainous isthmus, or\ndecorate a public building with a series of great frescoes--the central\npoint of interest is the individual and not society. How would a mother,\nwhose child was hovering between life and death, be comforted by the\ninformation that man was a great physician? How would America be helped\nin the construction of the Panama Canal by learning from sociologists\nthat man could remove mountains? How could great pictures be secured for\na public building by information to the effect that the greatest of all\ngreat artists depended for their exceptional power on the aggregate of\nconditions surrounding them, when ten millions of men whose surrounding\nconditions were similar might be tried in succession without one being\nfound who rose in art above the level of vulgar mediocrity? It is not\nthat the generalisations of the evolutionary sociologists with regard\nto man in the mass, or societies, are untrue philosophically.\nPhilosophically they are of the utmost moment. It is that they have no\nbearing on the problems of contemporary life, and that they miss out the\none factor by which they are brought into connection with it.\n\nLet us take, for example, the way in which Herbert Spencer illustrates\nthe general theorem of the evolutionary sociologists by the case of\nShakespeare, and Shakespeare's debt to his times. \"Given a Shakespeare,\"\nhe says, \"and what dramas could he have written without the\nmultitudinous conditions of civilised life around him--without the\nvarious traditions which, descending to him from the past, gave wealth\nto his thought, and without the language which a hundred generations had\ndeveloped and enriched by use?\" The answer to this question is to be\nfound in the counter-question that is provoked by it. Given the\nconditions of civilised life, and the traditions of England and its\nlanguage, as they were under Queen Elizabeth, how could these have\nproduced the Shakespearian dramas unless England had possessed an\nindividual citizen whose psycho-physical organisation was equal to that\nof Shakespeare? Similarly, it is true that Turner could not have painted\nhis sunsets if multitudinous atmospheric conditions had not given him\nsunsets to paint; but at the same time every one of Turner's\ncontemporaries were surrounded by sunsets of precisely the same kind,\nand yet only Turner was capable of producing such masterpieces as his\nown. The case of the writer and the artist, indeed, illustrates with\nsingular lucidity the fact which the philosophy of the evolutionary\nsociologists ignores that the great man does great things, not in virtue\nof conditions which he shares with the dullest and the feeblest of the\nmen around him, but in virtue of the manner in which his exceptional\ngenius assimilates the data of his environment, and gives them back to\nthe world, recombined, refashioned, and reinterpreted.\n\nAnd with regard to practical matters, and more especially the modern\nproduction of wealth, the case is just the same. No one has illustrated\nmore luminously than Herbert Spencer himself the multitudinous character\nof the knowledge which modern production necessitates; and no one has\ninsisted with more emphasis than he that one of the rarest faculties to\nbe met with among human beings is the faculty, as he expresses it, of\n\"apprehending assembled propositions in their totality.\" It would be\ndifficult to define better in equally brief language the intellectual\naspect of that composite mental equipment which distinguishes from\nordinary men the monopolists of business ability. It is precisely by\napprehending a multitude of assembled propositions in their\ntotality--mathematical, chemical, geological, geographical, and so\nforth--by combining them for a definite purpose, and translating them\ninto a series of orders which organised labour can execute, that the\nintellect of the able man gives efficiency to the industrial processes\nof to-day. In addition, moreover, to his purely intellectual faculties,\nhe requires others which, in their higher developments, are no less\nrare--namely, a quick discernment of popular wants as they arise or an\nimagination which enables him to anticipate them, an instinctive insight\ninto character which enables him to choose best men as his subordinates,\npromptitude to seize on opportunities, courage which is the soul of\npromptitude, and finally a driving energy by which the whole of his\nmoral and intellectual mechanism is actuated. As for \"the aggregate of\nconditions out of which he has arisen,\" or the aggregate of conditions\nwhich surround him, these are common to him and to every one of his\nfellow-countrymen. They are a landscape which surrounds them all. But\naggregates of conditions could no more produce the results of which, as\nHerbert Spencer admits, the able man is the proximate cause, unless the\nable man existed and could be induced to cause them, than a landscape\ncould be photographed without a lens or a camera, or a great picture of\nit painted in the absence of a great artist.\n\nHerbert Spencer, indeed, partially perceives all this himself. That is\nto say, he realises from time to time that the causal importance of the\ngreat man varies according to the nature of the problems in connection\nwith which we consider him and that while he is, for purposes of\ngeneral speculation, merely a transmitter of forces beyond and greater\nthan himself, he is for practical purposes an ultimate cause or fact.\nThat such is the case is shown in a curiously vivid way by two\nreferences to two great men in particular, which occur not far from each\nother in Spencer's _Study of Sociology_. One is a reference to the last\nNapoleon, the other is a reference to the first. He refers to the former\nwhen he is emphasising his main proposition, that the importance of the\nruler, considered as an individual, is small, and almost entirely merged\nin the conditions of society generally. \"If you wish,\" he says, \"to\nunderstand the phenomena of social evolution, you will not do it should\nyou read yourself blind over the biographies of all the great rulers on\nrecord, down to Frederick the greedy and Louis Napoleon the\ntreacherous.\" When he makes his reference to Louis Napoleon's ancestor,\nhe is pausing for a moment in the course of his philosophical argument\nin order to indulge in a parenthetical denunciation of war. Of the\ninsane folly of war, he says, we can have no better example than that\nprovided by Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when\nhardly a country was free from \"slaughter, suffering, and devastation.\"\nFor what, he goes on to ask, was the cause of such wide-spread horrors?\nSimply, he answers, the presence of one abnormal individual, \"in whom\nthe instincts of the savage were scarcely at all qualified by what we\ncall moral sentiments\"; and \"all this slaughter, suffering, and\ndevastation\" were, he says, \"gone through because one man had a restless\ndesire to be despot over all men.\" Here we see how Spencer, as a matter\nof common-sense, instinctively assigns to great men absolutely\ncontrasted positions, according to the point of view from which he is\nhimself regarding them--that of the speculative thinker and that of the\npractical politician, and of this fact we will take one example more. Of\nhis doctrine that the great man is merely a \"proximate initiator,\" and\nin no true sense the cause of what he seems to produce or do, he gives\nus an elaborate illustration taken from modern industry--that is to say,\nthe invention of the _Times_ printing-press. This wonderful piece of\nmechanism would, he says, have been wholly impossible if it had not been\nfor a series of discoveries and inventions that had gone before it; and\nhaving specified a multitude of these, winds up with a repetition of his\nmoral that of each invention individually the true cause is not the\nso-called inventor, but \"the aggregate of conditions out of which he has\narisen.\" But when elsewhere, in his treatise on _Social Statics_,\nSpencer is dealing with the existing laws of England, he violently\nattacks these, in so far as they relate to patents, because they fail,\nhe says, to recognise as absolute a man's \"property in his own ideas,\"\nor, in other words, \"his inventions, which he has wrought, as it were,\nout of the very substance of his own mind.\" Thus Spencer himself, at\ntimes, as these passages clearly show, sees that while great men, when\nconsidered philosophically, do little of what they appear to do, they\nmust for practical purposes be dealt with as though they did all; though\nhe nowhere recognises this distinction formally, or accords it a\ndefinite place in his general sociological system.[12]\n\nThe absurdity of confounding speculative sociology with practical is\nshown with equal clearness by Macaulay in the passage that was just now\nquoted from him. \"The inequalities of the intellect,\" he says, \"like the\ninequalities of the surface of the globe, bear so small a proportion to\nthe mass\" that the sociologist may neglect the one just as safely as the\nastronomer neglects the other. Now, this may be quite true if our\ninterest in human events is that of social astronomers who are watching\nthem from another planet. But because the inequalities of the earth are\nnothing to the astronomer, it does not follow that they are nothing to\nthe engineer and the geographer. The Alps for the astronomer may be an\ninfinitesimal and negligible excrescence; but they were not this to\nHannibal or the makers of the Mont Cenis tunnel. What to the astronomer\nare all the dykes of Holland? But they are everything to the Dutch\nbetween a dead nation and a living one. And the same thing holds good of\nthe inequalities of the human intellect. For the social astronomer they\nare nothing. For the practical man they are everything.\n\nIt is in the astonishing confusion between speculative and practical\ntruth which characterised the evolutionary sociologists of the\nnineteenth century that the socialists of to-day are seeking for a new\nsupport to their system. And now let us consider the way in which they\nthemselves have improved the occasion, and apply the moral which they\nhave drawn from such a singularly deceptive source. The three points\nwhich they aim at emphasising are the smallness of the products which\nthe able man can really claim as his own, the consequent diminution of\nhis claims to any exceptional reward on account of them, and the fact\nthat even the highest ability, however rare it may be, is very much\ncommoner than it seems to be, and will, for this reason in addition to\nthose just mentioned, be obtainable in the future at a very much reduced\nprice.\n\nOf these three points the last is the most definite. Let us take it\nfirst; and let us take it as stated, not by a professed socialist, but\nby an independent and highly educated thinker such as Mr. Kidd. Mr.\nKidd's argument is, as we have seen already, that the comparative\ncommonness of ability of the highest kind is shown by the fact that, of\nthe greatest inventions and discoveries, a number have been notoriously\nmade at almost the same time by a number of thinkers who have all worked\nin isolation. This argument would not be worth discussing if it were not\nused so constantly by a variety of serious writers. The fact on which it\nbases itself is no doubt true enough; but what is the utmost that it\nproves? That more men than one should reach at the same time the same\ndiscovery independently is precisely what we should be led to expect,\nwhen we consider what the character of scientific discovery is. The\nfacts of nature which form its subject-matter are in themselves as\nindependent of the men who discover them as an Alpine peak is of the men\nwho attempt to climb it. They are, indeed, precisely analogous to such a\npeak which all discoverers are attempting to scale at once; and the fact\nthat three men make at once the same discovery does no more to show that\nit could have been made by the majority of their fellow-workers, and\nthat it was in reality made not by themselves but by their generation,\nthan the fact that three men of exceptional nerve and endurance meet at\nlast on some previously virgin summit proves the feat to have been\naccomplished less by these men themselves than by the mass of tourists\nwho thronged the hotel below and whose climbing exploits were limited to\nan ascent by the Rigi Railway.\n\nOther writers, however, try to reach Mr. Kidd's conclusion by a\nsomewhat different route. Whether the great man is or is not a more\ncommon phenomenon than he seems to be, they maintain that his conquests\nin the realms of invention and discovery, when once made, really \"become\ncommon property,\" of which all men could take advantage if it were not\nfor artificial monopolies. All men, therefore, though not equal as\ndiscoverers, are practically equalised by whatever the discoverers\naccomplish. Now, of the simpler inventions and discoveries, such as that\nof fire for example, this is perfectly true; but it is true of these\nonly. As inventions and discoveries grow more and more complex, they no\nmore become common property, as soon as certain men have made them, than\nencyclopaedic knowledge becomes the property of every one who buys or\nhappens to inherit an edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. It is\nperfectly true that the discovery of each new portion of knowledge\nenables men to acquire it who might never have acquired it otherwise;\nbut as the acquisition of the details of knowledge becomes facilitated,\nthe number of details to be acquired increases at the same time; and the\nincreased ease of acquiring each is accompanied by an increased\ndifficulty in assimilating even those which are connected most closely\nwith each other. We may safely say that a knowledge of the simple rules\nof arithmetic is common to all the members of the English University of\nCambridge; but out of some thousands of students only a few become great\nmathematicians. And the same thing holds good of scientific knowledge\nin general, and especially of such knowledge as applied to the purposes\nof practical industry. Knowledge and inventions, once made, are like a\nriver which flows by everybody; but the water of the river becomes the\nproperty of individuals only in proportion to the quantity of it which\ntheir brains can, as it were, dip up; and the knowledge dipped up by the\nsmall brains is no more equal to that dipped up by the large than a\ntumbler of water is made equal to a hogshead by the fact that both\nvessels have been filled from the same stream.\n\nLet us now pass on to the argument which, differing essentially from the\npreceding in that it does not aim at proving that the great men are\ncommoner than they seem to be, or their knowledge more diffused, insists\nthat of what the great men seem to do very little is really their\nown--or that, as Mr. Bellamy puts it, in words which we have already\nquoted, \"nine hundred and ninety-nine parts out of a thousand of their\nproduce is really the result of their social inheritance and\nenvironment.\" Here, again, we have a statement, which from one point of\nview is true. It is merely a specialised expression of the far more\ngeneral doctrine that the whole process of the universe, man included,\nis one, and that all individual causes are only partial and proximate.\nNo man at any period could do the precise things that he does if the\ncountry in which he lives had had a different past or present, any more\nthan he could do anything if it were not for his own previous life, for\nthe fact that he had been born, that his mind and body had matured, and\nthat he had acquired, as he went along, such and such knowledge and\nexperience. How could a man do anything unless he had some environment?\nUnless he had some past, how could he exist at all? Mr. Bellamy and his\nfriends, when considering matters in this light, are not too extreme in\ntheir conclusions. On the contrary, they are too modest. For men, if\nthey were really isolated from their social inheritance and environment,\ncould not only do but little; they could do absolutely nothing. The\nadmission, therefore, that for practical purposes they must be held to\ndo something at all events, is an admission wrung from our philosophers\nby the exigencies of common-sense. As such, then, let us accept it; and\nwhat will our conclusion be? It will be this: that whatever it may be\nwhich the ordinary man produces, and in whatever sense he produces it,\nthe great man, in the same sense, produces a great deal more. The\ndifference between them in efficiency will be no more lessened by the\nfact that both are standing on the pedestal of a common past, than the\ndifference in stature will be lessened between a dwarf and a giant\nbecause they are both standing on the top of a New York skyscraper, or\nbecause they have both been nourished on the same species of food.\n\nBut the practical absurdity of the whole set of arguments urged in a\ncontrary sense by Herbert Spencer, Mr. Kidd, and the speculative\nsociologists generally, is brought to its climax by those modern\nexponents of socialism who attempt to invest them with a moral as well\nas an industrial significance. Thus Mr. Webb, who himself frankly\nrecognises that the monopolists of business ability are industrially\nmore efficient than the great mass of their fellows, and that man for\nman they produce incomparably more wealth, endeavours, by means of the\narguments which we have been just considering, to show that though they\nproduce it they have no moral right to keep it. The proposal, he says,\nthat, though men are vastly unequal in productivity, they should all of\nthem be awarded an equal share of the product--that if one man produces\nonly one shilling, while another man produces ninety-nine, the resulting\nhundred should be halved and each of the men take fifty--this proposal\n\"has,\" he says, \"an abstract justification, as the special energy and\nability with which some persons are born is an unearned increment due to\nthe effect of the struggle for existence upon their ancestors, and\nconsequently, having been produced by society, is as much due to society\nas the unearned increment of rent.\"\n\nNow, if this argument has any practical meaning at all, it can only mean\nthat the men who have been born with such special powers will, as soon\nas they recognise what the origin of these powers is, realise that they\nhave, as individuals, no special claims on the results of them, and will\nconsequently become more willing than they are at the present time to\ncontinue to produce the results, though they will not be allowed to\nkeep them. We will not insist, as we might do, on the curious want of\nknowledge of human nature which the argument thus put forward by Mr.\nWebb and other socialists betrays. It will be enough to point out that,\nif it applies to the monopolists of business ability, it applies with\nequal force to all other sorts of men whatever. If it is to society as a\nwhole that the able man owes his energy, his talents, and the products\nof them, it is to society as a whole that the idle man owes his\nidleness, the stupid man his stupidity, and the dishonest man his\ndishonesty; and if the able man, who produces an exceptional amount of\nwealth, can with justice claim no more than the average man who produces\nlittle, the man who is so idle that he shirks producing anything may\nwith equal justice claim as much wealth as either. His constitutional\nfault, and his constitutional disinclination to mend it, are both of\nthem due to society, and society, not he, must suffer.\n\nIf we attempted to organise a community in accordance with such a\nconclusion as this, we should be getting rid of all connection between\nconduct and the natural results of it, and divorcing action from motive\naltogether. Such is the conclusion to which Mr. Webb's argument would\nlead us; and the absurdity of the argument, as applied by him to moral\nclaims and merits, though more self-evident, is not any more complete\nthan the absurdity of similar arguments as applied to the individual\ngenerally in respect of his productive powers, and the amount of\nproduce produced by them. The whole conception, in short, of the\nindividual as merged in the aggregate has no relation to practical life\nwhatever. For the practical man the individual is always a unit; and it\nis only as a unit that it is possible practically to deal with him. We\nmay change him in some respects by changing his general conditions, as\nwe hope to do by legislation which aims at the diminution of\ndrunkenness; but a change in general conditions, if it diminished\ndrunkenness generally, would do so only because it affected at the same\ntime the isolated minds and organisms of a number of individual\ndrunkards.\n\nAnd to do Mr. Webb and his brother socialists justice, they\nunconsciously admit all this themselves; for, as soon as they set\nthemselves to discuss the motives of the able man in detail, they\naltogether abandon the irrelevancies of speculative sociology with which\nthey manage at other times to bemuse themselves. That such is the case\nwe shall see in the following chapter. I will, however, anticipate what\nwe shall see there by mentioning that among the motives which are in the\nsocialistic future to replace, among able men, the desire of economic\ngain, one of the chief is to be the desire of moral approbation. Unless\na man's actions, whether industrial or moral, are to be treated as his\nown, instead of being attributed to his conditions, he would have as\nlittle right to the praise which it is proposed to give him as he would\nhave to the dollars which it is proposed to take away.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[12] I first made this criticism of Spencer in my work _Aristocracy and\nEvolution_. On that occasion Mr. Spencer wrote to me, complaining with\nmuch vehemence that I had misrepresented him; and he repeated the\nsubstance of his letter in a subsequent published essay. My criticism\ndealt, and could have dealt only, not with what he meant, but what he\nsaid; and certainly in his language--and, as I think, in his own\nmind--there was a constant confusion between the two truths in question.\nApart, however, from what he considered to be my own misrepresentation\nof himself, he declared that he entirely agreed with me; and that \"great\nmen\" must, for practical purposes, be regarded as the true causes of\nsuch changes as they initiate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE ULTIMATE DIFFICULTY, CONTINUED.\nABILITY AND INDIVIDUAL MOTIVE\n\nThe fact that the speculative arguments which we have just now been\ndiscussing are not only irrelevant to the problem of the able man and\nhis motives, but are tacitly abandoned as being so by the very men who\nhave urged them, when they come to deal specifically with that problem\nthemselves, may suggest to some readers that so long a discussion of\nthem was superfluous. But though the socialists abandon them at the very\nmoment when, if ever, they ought to be susceptible of some definite\napplication, they abandon them quite unconsciously, and still continue\nto attach to them some solemn importance. Such being the case, then, the\nmore futile these arguments are the stronger is the light thrown by them\non the peculiar intellectual weakness which distinguishes even the most\ncapable of those who think it worth their while to employ them. For this\nreason, therefore, if for no other, our examination of them will have\nproved useful, for it will have prepared us to encounter a weakness of\nprecisely the same kind in the reasonings of the socialists when they\ndeal with motive directly.\n\nLet us once more state this direct problem of motive, as with perfect\naccuracy, stated by the socialists themselves. Under existing conditions\nthe monopolists of business ability are mainly induced to add to the\nnational store of wealth by the prospect, whose fulfilment existing\nconditions make possible, of retaining shares of it as their own which\nare proportionate to the amounts produced by them. The question is,\ntherefore, whether, if this prospect is taken away from them, socialism\ncould provide another which men of this special type would find equally\nstimulating. Is human nature in general, and the nature of the\nmonopolists in particular, sufficiently adaptable to admit of such a\nchange as this? The socialists answer that it is, and in making such an\nassertion they declare that they have all the facts of scientific\nsociology at the back of them. The unscientific thing is, they say, to\nassume the contrary; and here, they proceed, we have the fundamental\nerror which renders most of the conclusions of the ordinary economists\nvalueless. Economic science, in its generally accepted form, bases all\nits reasonings on the behaviour of the so-called \"economic man\"--that is\nto say, a being from whom those who reason about him exclude all\noperative desires except that of economic gain. But such a being, say\nthe socialists, is a mere abstraction. He has no counterpart among\nliving, loving, idealising, aspiring men. Real men are susceptible of\nthe desire of gain, no doubt; but this provides them only with one\nmotive out of many; and there are others which, as experience amply\nshows us, are, when they are given unimpeded play, far stronger. I do\nnot know whether socialists have ever used the following parallel; but\nif they have not it expresses their position better than they have\nexpressed it themselves. They argue virtually that, in respect of the\ndesire for exceptional gain, able men are comparable to victims of the\ndesire for alcohol. If alcohol is obtainable, such men will insist on\nobtaining it. They will constantly fix their thoughts on it; no other\nfluid will satisfy them. But if it is placed altogether beyond their\nreach, they will be compelled by the force of circumstances to drink\nlemonade, tea, or even plain water instead. In time they will come to\ndrink them with the same avidity; and their health and their powers of\nenjoyment will be indefinitely improved in consequence. In the same way,\nit is argued, the monopolists of business ability, though, so long as it\nis possible for them to appropriate a considerable share of their\nproducts, they will insist on getting this share, and will not exert\nthemselves otherwise, need only be placed under conditions which will\nrender such gain impossible, and at once they will find out that there\nexist other inducements which will prove before long to be no less\nefficacious.\n\nSuch is the general argument of the modern school of socialists; but\nthey do not leave it in this indeterminate form. They have, to their own\nsatisfaction, worked it out in detail, and claim that they are able to\ndemonstrate from the actual facts of human nature precisely what the\ncharacter of the new inducements will be.\n\nIt may be looked upon as evidence of the methodical and quasi-scientific\naccuracy with which modern socialists have set themselves to discuss\nthis question of motive that the thought of all of them has moved along\nthe same lines, and that what all of them fix upon as a substitute for\nthe desire of exceptional pecuniary gain is one or other, or all, of a\nfew motives actually in operation, and notoriously effective in certain\nspheres of activity.\n\nThese motives practically resolve themselves into four, which have been\nclassified as follows by Mr. Webb or one of his coadjutors:\n\n\"The mere pleasure of excelling,\" or the joy of the most powerful in\nexercising their powers to the utmost.\n\n\"The joy in creative work,\" such as that which the artist feels in\nproducing a great work of art.\n\nThe satisfaction which ministering to others \"brings to the instincts of\nbenevolence,\" such as that which is felt by those who give themselves to\nthe sick and helpless.\n\nAnd, lastly, the desire for approval, or the homage which is called\n\"honour,\" the efficiency of which is shown by the conduct of the\nsoldier--often a man of very ordinary education and character--who will\nrisk death in order that he may be decorated with some intrinsically\nworthless medal, which merely proclaims his valour or his unselfish\ndevotion to his country.\n\nNow, that the motives here in question are motives of extraordinary\npower, all history shows us. The most impressive things accomplished by\nhuman nature have been due to them. But let us consider what these\nthings are. The first motive--namely, that supplied by the mere\n\"pleasure in excelling\"--we need hardly consider by itself, for, in so\nfar as socialists can look upon its objects as legitimate, it is\nincluded in the struggle for approbation or honour. We will merely\nremark that the emphasis which the socialists lay on it is not very\nconsonant with the principles of those persons who propose to abolish\ncompetition as the root of all social evils; and we will content\nourselves with examining in detail the three other motives only, and the\nscope of their efficiency, as actual experience reveals it to us.\n\nWe shall find that the activities which these three motives stimulate\nare confined, so far as experience is able to teach us anything, to the\nfollowing well-marked kinds, which have been already indicated: those of\nthe artist, of the speculative thinker, of the religious and\nphilanthropic enthusiast, and, lastly, those of the soldier. This list,\nif understood in its full sense, is exhaustive.\n\nSuch being the case, then, the argument of the socialists is as follows:\nBecause a Fra Angelico will paint a Christ or a Virgin, because a Kant\nwill immolate all his years to philosophy, because a monk and a sister\nof mercy will devote themselves to the victims of pestilence, because a\nsoldier in action will eagerly face death--all without hope of any\nexceptional pecuniary reward--the monopolists of business ability, if\nonly such rewards are made impossible for them, will at once become\namenable to the motives of the soldier, the artist, the philosopher, the\ninspired philanthropist, and the saint. This is the assertion of the\nsocialists when reduced to a precise form; and what we have to do is to\ninquire whether this assertion is true. Does human nature, as history,\nas psychology, and as physiology reveal it to us, give us any grounds,\nin fact, for taking such an assertion seriously? Any one who has studied\nhuman conduct historically, who has observed it in the life around him,\nand examined scientifically the diversities of temperament and motive\nthat go with diversities of capacity, will dismiss such an assertion as\nat once groundless and ludicrous.\n\nLet us, to go into detail, take the case of the artist. What reason is\nthere to suppose that the impassioned emotion which stimulates the\nadoring monk to lavish all his genius on an altar-piece will stimulate\nanother man to devise, and to organise the production of, some new kind\nof liquid enamel for the decoration of cheap furniture?[13] Or let us\nturn to an impulse closely allied to the artistic--namely, the desire\nfor speculative truth, as manifested in the lives of scientific and\nphilosophic thinkers. These men--such as Kant and Hegel, for\nexample--have been proverbially, and often ludicrously, indifferent to\nthe material details of their existence. Who can suppose that the\ndisinterested passion for truth, which had the effect of making these\nmen forget their dinners, will stimulate others to devote themselves to\nthe improvement of stoves and saucepans?\n\nYet again, let us consider the area of the industrial influence of the\nmotives originating in religious fervour or benevolence. The most\nimportant illustration of this is to be found in the monastic orders.\nThe monastic orders constructed great buildings; they successfully\npractised agriculture and other industrial arts: and those of them who\nwere faithful to their vows aimed at no personal luxuries. On the\ncontrary, their superfluous possessions were applied by them to the\nrelief of indigence. But this industrial asceticism was made possible\nonly by its association with another asceticism--the renunciation of\nwomen, the private home, the family. Even so, in the days when Christian\npiety was at its highest, those who were capable of responding to the\nindustrial motives of the cloister formed but a fraction of the general\npopulation of Christendom, while even among them these motives\nconstantly ceased to operate; and, as St. Francis declared with regard\nto his own disciples, the desire for personal gain continually insisted\non reasserting itself. What ground have we here for supposing that\nmotives, whose action hitherto has always been strictly limited to\npassionate and seclusive idealists turning their backs on the world,\nwill ever become general among the monopolists of that business ability,\nthe object of whom is to fill the world with increasing comforts and\nluxuries. One might as well argue that, because the monastic orders were\ncelibate, and formed at one time a very numerous body, all men will\nprobably soon turn celibate also, and yet at the same time continue to\nreproduce their species.\n\nBut the scientific quality of the psychological reasoning of the\nsocialists is best illustrated by their treatment of another class of\nfacts--that on which they themselves unanimously lay the greatest\nstress--namely, the heroisms of the soldier, and other men of a kindred\ntype. The soldier, they say, is not only willing but eager to perform\nduties of the most painful and dangerous kind, without any thought of\nreceiving any higher pay than his fellows. If, then, human nature is\nsuch, they continue, that we can get from it on these terms work such as\nthat of the soldier's, which is work in its most terrifying form, it\nstands to reason that we can, on the same terms, get out of it work of a\nmuch easier kind, such as that of exceptional business ability applied\nto the safe and peaceful direction of labour. Nor is this argument urged\nby socialists only. Other thinkers who, though resembling them somewhat\nin sentiment, are wholly opposed to socialism as a formal creed, have\nlikewise pitched upon the soldier's conduct in war as a signal\nillustration of the potentialities of human nature in peace. Thus Ruskin\nsays that his whole scheme of political economy is based on the moral\nassimilation of industrial action to military. \"Soldiers of the\nploughshare,\" he exclaims in one of his works, \"as well as soldiers of\nthe sword! All my political economy is comprehended in that phrase.\" So,\ntoo, Mr. Frederic Harrison, the English prophet of Positivism, following\nout the same train of thought, has declared that the soldier's readiness\nto die in battle for his country is a realised example of a readiness,\nalways latent in men, to spend themselves and be spent in the service of\nhumanity generally. Again in the same sense, another writer observes,\n\"The soldier's subsistence is certain. It does not depend on his\nexertions. At once he becomes susceptible to appeals to his patriotism,\nand he will value a bit of bronze, which is the reward of valour, far\nmore than a hundred times its weight in gold\"--a passage to which one of\nMr. Sidney Webb's collaborators refers with special delight, exclaiming,\n\"Let those take notice of this last fact who fancy we must wait till men\nare angels before socialism is practical.\"\n\nNow, the arguments thus drawn from the facts of military activity throw\na special light on the methods and mental condition of those who so\nsolemnly urge them; for the error by which these arguments are vitiated\nis of a peculiarly glaring kind. It consists of a failure to perceive\nthat military activity is, in many respects, a thing altogether apart,\nand depends on psychological and physiological conditions which have no\nanalogies in the domain of ordinary economic effort.\n\nThat such must necessarily be the case can be very easily seen by\nfollowing out the train of reasoning suggested by Mr. Frederic Harrison.\nMr. Harrison correctly assumes that no man, in ordinary life, will run\nthe risk of being killed or mutilated except for the sake of some object\nthe achievement of which is profoundly desired by him. If a man, for\ninstance, puts his hand into the fire in order to pick out something\nthat has dropped among the burning coals, we naturally assume that this\nsomething is of the utmost value and importance to him. We measure the\nvalue which a man places on the object by the desperate character of the\nmeans which he will take to gain it; and Mr. Harrison jumps to the\nconclusion that what holds good in ordinary life will hold equally good\non the field of battle also. Hence he argues--for this is his special\npoint--that the willingness of the soldier to die fighting on behalf of\nhis country shows how individuals of no unusual kind value their\ncountry's welfare more than their own lives, and how readily, such being\nthe case, devotion to a particular country may be enlarged into a\nreligious devotion to Humanity taken as a whole. Now, there are\noccasions, no doubt, in which, a country being in desperate straits, the\nsoldier's valour is heightened by devotion to the cause he fights for;\nbut that ideal devotion like this affords no sufficient explanation of\nthe peculiar character of military activity generally; and that there\nmust be some deeper and more general cause at the back of it, is shown\nby the fact that some of the most reckless soldiers known to us have\nbeen mercenaries who would fight as willingly for one country as for\nanother. And this deeper and more general cause, when we look for it, is\nsufficiently obvious. It consists of the fact that, owing to the\nmillions of years of struggle to which was due, in the first place, the\nevolution of man as a species, and, in the second place, the races of\nmen in their existing stages of civilisation, the fighting instinct is,\nin the strongest of these races, inherent after a fashion in which the\nindustrial instincts are not; and will always prompt numbers to do, for\nthe smallest wage or none, what they could hardly, in its absence, be\ninduced to do for the highest. This instinct, no doubt, is more\ncontrolled than formerly, and is not so often roused; but it is still\nthere. It is ready to quicken at the mere sound of military music; and\nthe sight of regiments marching stirs the most apathetic crowd.\nHigh-spirited boys will, for the mere pleasure of fighting, run the risk\nof having their noses broken, while they will wince at getting up in the\ncold for the sake of learning their lessons, and would certainly rebel\nagainst being set to work as wage-earners at a task which involved so\nmuch as a daily pricking of their fingers.\n\nHere we have the reason, embodied in the very organism of the human\nbeing, why military activity is something essentially distinct from\nindustrial, and why any inference drawn from the one to the other is\nvalueless. And to this primary fact it is necessary to add another. Not\nonly is the fighting instinct an exceptional phenomenon in man, but the\ncircumstances which call it into being are in these days exceptional\nalso. Socialists frequently, when referring to the soldier's conduct,\nrefer also to conduct of a closely allied kind, such as that of the\nmembers of fire-brigades and the crews of life-boats, and repeat their\nprevious question of why, since men like these will, without demanding\nany exceptional reward, make such exceptional efforts to save the lives\nof others, the monopolists of business ability may not be reasonably\nexpected to forgo all exceptional claims on their own exceptional\nproducts, and distribute among all the superfluous wealth produced by\nthem just as freely as the fireman climbs his ladder, or as life-belts\nare distributed by the boatmen in their work of rescue. And if human\nlife were nothing but a chronic conflagration or shipwreck, in which all\nalike were fighting for bare existence, all alike being menaced by some\nterrible and instant death, this argument of the socialists might\ndoubtless have some truth in it. The men of exceptional ability, by a\nvariety of ingenious devices, might seek to save others no less\nassiduously than themselves, without expecting anything like exceptional\nwealth as a reward; for there would, in a case like this, be no question\nof wealth for anybody. But as soon as the stress of such a situation was\nrelaxed, and the abilities of the ablest, liberated from the task of\ncontending with death, were left free to devote themselves to the\nsuperfluous decoration of life, the artificial tension of the moral\nmotives would be relaxed. The swimmer who had plunged into the sea to\nsave a woman from drowning would not take a second plunge to rescue her\nsilk petticoat. The socialists, in short, when dealing with military and\nother cognate heroisms, ignore both of the causes which alone make such\nheroisms possible. They ignore the fact that the internal motive is\nessentially isolated and exceptional. They ignore the further fact that\nthe circumstances which alone give this motive play are essentially\nexceptional also, and could never be reproduced in social life at large,\nexcept at the cost of making all human life intolerable.\n\nI have called special attention to this particular socialistic argument,\npartly because socialists, and other sentimental thinkers, like Ruskin,\nattach such extreme importance to it; but mainly because it affords us\nan exceptionally striking illustration of the manner in which they are\naccustomed to reason about matters with regard to which they\nostentatiously profess themselves to be the pioneers of accurate\nscience. One of the principal grounds--to repeat what has been said\nalready--on which they attack what they call the Economics of\nCapitalism, is that it deals exclusively with the actions of \"the\neconomic man,\" or the man whose one motive is the appropriation of\nwealth. Such a man, they say, is an abstraction. He does not exist in\nreality; and if economics is to have any scientific value it must deal\nwith man as a whole, in all his living complexity. As applied to the\northodox economists this criticism has an element of truth in it; but\nwhen the socialists attempt to act on their own loudly boasted\nprinciples, and deal with human nature as a whole instead of only one of\nits elements, they do nothing but travesty the error which they set out\nwith denouncing. The one-motived economic man who cares only for\npersonal gain is, no doubt, an abstraction, like the lines and points of\nEuclid. Still the motive ascribed to him is one which has a real\nexistence and produces real effects. It has been defined with accuracy;\nand by studying its effects in isolation we reach many true conclusions.\nBut the other motives, with which socialists declare that we must\nsupplement this, are treated by them in a manner so crude, so childish,\nso incomplete, so deficient in the mere rudiments of scientific\nanalysis, that they do not correspond to anything. Instead of forming\nany true addition to the data of economic science, they are like images\nbelonging to the dream of a maudlin school-girl. They have only the\neffect of obscuring, not completing, the facts to which the orthodox\neconomists too closely confined themselves, but which, though\nincomplete, are so far as they go actual.\n\nNow, however, without getting out of touch with the socialists, let us\nreturn to firmer ground, and having seen the futility of their attempts\nto indicate any motive calculated to operate on the monopolists of\nbusiness ability, other than that supplied under the existing system by\nthe prospect of possessing wealth proportionate to the amount produced\nby them, let us consider this motive in itself, as history and\nobservation reveal it to us.\n\nAnd here in the presence of facts which no one seeks to deny, we shall\nfind that the socialists themselves are among our most interesting\nwitnesses, affording in what they assert a solitary and signal exception\nto that looseness of thought and observation which is otherwise their\ndistinguishing characteristic. The motive here in question as ascribed\nto the exceptional wealth-producer, the director, the man of business\nability--the motive which in his case the socialists propose to\nsupersede, but which is at present in possession of the field--commonly\nreceives from them the vituperative name of \"greed.\" What they mean by\ngreed is simply the desire of the great wealth-producer to retain for\nhimself a share of wealth, not necessarily equal, but proportionate, to\nthe amount produced by him. And what have the socialists got to tell us\nabout greed, when they turn from their plans for superseding it in the\nsocialistic future to consider its operations in the actual past and\npresent?\n\nThey tell us a great deal. For what is, and always has been, their stock\nmoral indictment against the typical men of ability, the pioneers of\ncommerce, the capitalistic directors of labour, the introducers of new\ninventions, the amplifiers of the world's wealth? Their chief indictment\nagainst such men has been this--that their exceptional ability, instead\nof being roused into action solely by the pleasure of benefiting their\nfellow-men, has been utterly dead and irresponsive to every stimulus but\none; and that this has been personal greed, and personal greed alone.\nIts influence, they say, is as old as civilisation itself, and was as\noperative in the days when the prows of the Tyrian traders first\nploughed their way beyond the pillars of Hercules, as it is to-day under\nthe smoke-clouds of Manchester, of Pittsburg, and Chicago. Karl Marx\nfor example, in a very interesting passage written in England about the\ntime of the abolition of the Corn-laws, declared that the radical\nmanufacturers, who professed to support that measure on the ground that\nit would secure cheap food for the people, were not moved in reality,\nand were not capable of being moved, by any desire but that of lowering\nthe rate of wages, and thus increasing the surplus which they raked into\ntheir own pockets. In other words, the psychologists of socialism\ndeclare that, so far as the facts of human nature in the present and the\npast can teach us anything, the desire of exceptional wealth is just as\ninseparable from the temperament which, by some physiological law,\naccompanies the power of producing it, as \"the joy in creation\" is from\nthe temperament of the great painter, or the love of a woman is from the\nlover's efforts to win her.\n\nWe thus see that those thinkers who, when they are dealing with an\nimaginary future, base all their hopes on the possibility of a complete\nelimination of a certain motive from a certain special class of persons,\nare the very men who are most vehement in declaring that in this special\nclass of persons the motive in question is something so ingrained and\ninveterate that in no age or country has it ever been so much as\nmodified.\n\nNor does the matter end here; for the amusing contradiction in which\nsocialistic thought thus lauds itself, is emphasised by the fact that\nthe socialists, when they turn from the few to the many, assume in the\nmany, as an instinct of eternal justice, that precise desire for gain\nwhich, in the case of the few, they first denounce as a hideous and\nincurable disease, and then propose to cure as though it were the\npassing cough of a baby. For what is the bait with which, from its first\nbeginnings till to-day, socialism has sought to secure the support of\nthe general multitude? It is mainly, if not solely, the promise of\nincreased personal gain, without any increased effort on the part of the\nhappy recipients. With Marx and the earlier socialists, this promise\ntook the form of declaring that every man has a sacred right to whatever\nhe has himself produced, and that, all the wealth of the world being\nproduced by manual labour, the labourers must never be satisfied until\nthey have secured all of it. The more educated socialists of to-day,\nhaving gradually come to perceive that labour itself produces but a\nfraction of this wealth only, have had to alter the form of their\npromise, but they still adhere to its substance; and the altered form of\nthe promise does but bring out more clearly the fact that they appeal to\nthe desire of personal gain as the primary economic motive of the great\nmajority of mankind. For, whereas the earlier socialists contented\nthemselves with promising the labourer the whole of what he produced,\nand promising it on the ground that he had himself produced it, what the\nlabourer is promised by the intellectual socialists of to-day is not\nonly all that he has produced--which in most cases he gets\nalready[14]--but a great deal more besides, which is admittedly produced\nby others.\n\nWe thus see that, according to these theorists, the kind of moral\nconversion which is to make socialism practicable is to be rigidly\nconfined to one particular class; for, on the part of the majority, no\nchange at all is required in order to make the socialistic evangel\nwelcome. So far as they are concerned, the Old Adam is quite sufficient.\nNone of us need much converting in order to welcome the prospect of an\nindefinite addition to our incomes, which will cost us nothing but the\ntrouble of stretching out our hands to take it. Socialists often\ncomplain that, under the existing dispensation, there is one law for the\nrich and another law for the poor. They propose themselves to introduce\na difference which goes still deeper, and to provide the few and the\nmany, not only with two laws, but with two different natures, and two\nantithetic moralities. The morality of the many is to remain, as it\nalways has been, comfortably based on the familiar desire for dollars.\nThe morality of the few is to be based on some hitherto unknown contempt\nfor them; and the class which the socialists fix upon as the subjects of\nthis moral transformation, is precisely the class which they denounce as\nbeing, and as always having been, in respect of its devotion to dollars,\nthe most notorious, and the most notoriously incorrigible.\n\nThat arguments such as these, culminating in an absurdity like this, and\nstarting with the assumption that it is possible to animate a\nmanufacturer's office with the spirit of soldiers facing an enemy's\nguns, should actually emanate from sane men would be unbelievable, if\nthe arguments were not being repeated from day to day by men who, in\nsome respects, are far from being incompetent reasoners. Indeed, many of\nthem themselves would, it seems, be extremely doubtful with regard to\nthe plasticity imputed by them to human nature, if it were not for a\ntheory of society which is not peculiar to socialism. This is the theory\nthat, in any community or nation in which each citizen is completely\nfree to express his will by his vote, and realises the extent of the\npower which thus resides in him, the will of the majority has\npractically no limits to its efficiency, and will be able in the future\nto bring about moral changes, which are at present, perhaps, beyond the\nlimits of possibility, but are only so because the means of effecting\nthem have never yet been fully utilised. This theory of democracy we\nwill consider in the following chapter.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[13] Mr. G. Wilshire, in criticising this argument as stated in one of\nmy American addresses, declares that there would be nothing in socialism\nto prevent any great artist (such as a singer) from making an even\nlarger fortune than he or she does now. But though a Melba, under the\nexisting system, demands a large price for her services, under socialism\nall would be changed. Though she _could_ get it, she would no longer\nwant it. She would then want no reward but the mere joy of using her\nvoice. And he infers that this change which would take place in the\nbosoms of great singers would repeat itself under the breast-pocket of\nevery leader and organiser of commercial enterprise. It would be hard to\nfind a better illustration of the purely fanciful reasoning commented on\nin the text.\n\n[14] The question of how much labour, _as such_, produces in modern\nsocieties is discussed in a later chapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nINDIVIDUAL MOTIVE AND DEMOCRACY\n\nThe ascription of imaginary powers to the so-called \"sovereign\"\ndemocracy, which are really beyond the reach of any kind of government\nwhatsoever, is, as I have said, a fallacy by no means peculiar to\nSocialists. Socialists merely push it to its full logical consequences;\nand I will begin with illustrating it by the arguments of a recent\nwriter who, professedly as a social conservative, has dealt in detail\nwith this precise question of the motives of the exceptional\nwealth-producer, which has just now been engaging us. I refer to the\nauthor of an essay in _The North American Review_, who hides his\npersonality under the cryptic initial \"X,\" but who is said to be one of\nthe most cultivated and best-known thinkers now living in the United\nStates.\n\nThe subject of his essay is the growth, almost peculiar to that country,\nnot of large, but of those colossal fortunes, which have certainly had\nno parallel in the past history of the world. The position of \"X\" is\nthat the growth of such fortunes is deplorable, partly because they are\npossible instruments of judicial and political corruption, and partly\nbecause they excite antagonism against private wealth in general by\nexhibiting it to the gaze of the multitude in such monstrous and\ngrotesque proportions. In any case, says \"X,\" \"it is to the true\ninterest of the multimillionaires themselves to join those who are free\nfrom envy in trying to remove the rapidly growing dissatisfaction with\ntheir continued possession of these vast sums of money.\"\n\nNow, though \"X\" hints that some of the fortunes in question may be open\nto further reprehension, on the ground that they have been acquired\ndishonestly, he by no means maintains that this opprobrium attaches\nitself to the great majority of them. On the contrary, he admits that\nthe typical huge fortunes of America are based on the productive\nactivities of the remarkable men who have amassed them. The talents of\nsuch men, he says, are essential to the prosperity of the country, and\nit is necessary to stimulate such men to develop their talents to the\nutmost by allowing them to derive for themselves some special reward for\ntheir use of them; but he contends that the rewards which they are at\npresent permitted to appropriate are needlessly and dangerously\nexcessive, and ought therefore to be limited. But limited by what means?\nIt is his answer to this question that here alone concerns us.\n\nThe means, he says, by which these rewards may be limited are ready to\nhand, and can be applied with the utmost ease. They are provided by the\ndemocratic Constitution of the United States of America. \"No one can\ndoubt, for example,\" he goes on to observe, \"that, if the majority of\nthe voters of the State of New York chose to elect a governor of their\nown way of thinking, they could readily enact a progressive taxation of\nincomes which would limit every citizen of New York State to such income\nas the majority of voters considers sufficient for him. And it would be\nparticularly easy,\" adds the writer, \"to alienate the property of every\nman at death, for it is only necessary to repeal the statutes now\nauthorising the descent of such property to the heirs and legatees of\nthe decedent.\" Here, then, according to \"X,\" is an obvious way out of\nthe difficulty, the feasibility of which no one can doubt. A certain\nminority of the citizens render services essential to the majority; but\nthese advantages are accompanied by a corresponding drawback. The\nmajority, by the simple use of their sovereign power as legislators, can\nretain the former and get rid of the latter. The remedy is in their own\nhands.\n\nIt would be difficult to imagine an illustration more vivid than this of\nthe error to which I am now referring--the common error of ascribing to\nmajorities in democratic communities powers which they do not possess,\nand which, as I said before, no kind of government possesses, whether it\nbe that of a democracy or of an autocrat. That a majority of the voters\nin any democratic country can enact any laws they please at any given\nmoment which happen to be in accordance with what \"X\" calls their then\n\"way of thinking,\" and perhaps enforce them for a moment, is no doubt\nperfectly true. But life is not made up of isolated moments or periods.\nIt is a continuous process, in which each moment is affected by the\nmoments that have gone before, and by the prospective character of the\nmoments that are to come after. If it were not for this fact, the\nmajority of the voters of New York State, \"by electing a governor of\ntheir own way of thinking,\" might not only put a limit to the income\nwhich any citizen might possess. It might do a great deal more besides.\nIt might enact a law which limited the amount which any citizen might\neat. It might limit everybody to two ounces a day. Besides enacting that\nno father should bequeath his wealth to his children, it might enact\njust as readily that no father should have the custody of his children.\nIt might enact, in obedience to the persuasions of some plausible quack,\nthat no one should take any medicines but a single all-curing pill.\nThere is nothing in the principles so solemnly laid down by \"X\" which\nwould render any of these enactments more impossible than those which he\nhimself contemplates. But if such enactments were made by the so-called\nall-powerful majority, through a governor of their own way of thinking,\nwhat would be the result? If a law forbade the citizens to eat enough\nto keep themselves alive, it might perhaps be obeyed throughout Monday,\nbut it would be broken by Tuesday morning. A law which deprived fathers\nof the care of their own children might just as well be a law which\ndecreed that no children should be born. A law which decreed that no\nremedy but the same quack pill should be applied to any disease, whether\ncholera, appendicitis, or small-pox, would be either disregarded from\nthe beginning, or would soon be repealed by a pestilence. In short, if\nany one of these ridiculous laws were enacted, the very voters who voted\nfor it would disregard it as soon as they realised its consequences; and\nthe work which they did as legislators they would tear to pieces as men.\nIn other words, if we mean, by legislation, legislation which can be\npermanently obeyed, the legislative sovereignty of democracies, which is\nso commonly spoken of as supreme, is limited in every direction by\nanother power greater than itself; and this is the double power of\nnature and of human nature. Just as all laws relating to the food which\nmen are to eat, and the drugs by which their maladies are to be cured,\nmust depend on the natural qualities of such and such physical\nsubstances, so do the constitution and propensities of the concrete\nhuman character limit legislation generally, and confine it within\ncertain channels.\n\nThis is what \"X\" and similar thinkers forget; and the nature of their\nerror is very pertinently illustrated by an observation of the English\njurist, Lord Coleridge, to which \"X\" solemnly refers, as corroborating\nhim in his own wisdom. \"The same power,\" says Lord Coleridge, \"which\nprescribes rules for the possession of property can of course alter\nthem\"; this power being the legislative body of whatever country may be\nin question. It is easy to see the manner in which Lord Coleridge\nreasons. Because, in any country, the formulation and enforcement of\nlaws have the will of the governing body as the proximate cause which\ndetermines them, it seems to Lord Coleridge that, in this contemporary\nwill, the laws thus formulated and enforced have their ultimate cause\nalso. For example, according to him, the entire institution of property\nin the State of New York is virtually a fresh creation of the voters\nfrom year to year, and has nothing else behind it. But, in reality, all\nthis business of formulation and enforcement is a secondary process, not\na primary process at all. Lord Coleridge is simply inverting the actual\norder of things. Half the existing \"rules prescribed as to the\npossession of property\" have, for their ultimate object, the protection\nof family life, the privacy of the private home, and the provision made\nby parents for their children. But family life is not primarily the\ncreation of prescribed rules. It is the creation of instincts and\naffections which have developed themselves in the course of ages.\nInstead of the law creating family life, it is family life which has\ngradually called into being--which has created and dictated--the rules\nand sanctions protecting it. The same is the case with bequest,\nmarriage, and so forth. The conduct of civilised men is bound to conform\nto laws, but the laws must first conform to general human practice. They\nmerely give precision to conduct which has a deeper origin than\nlegislation. Laws, in fact, may be compared to soldiers' uniforms.\nThese, within certain limits, may be varied indefinitely by a\nwar-office; but they all must be such as will adapt themselves to the\nhuman body and its movements. The will of a government may prescribe\nthat the trousers shall be tight or loose, that they shall be black or\nbrown or bright green or vermilion. But no government can prescribe that\nthey shall be only three inches round the waist, or that the soldier's\nsleeves shall start, not from the shoulders, but from the pockets of the\ncoat-tails. The human body is here a legislator which is supreme over\nall governments; and just the same thing is true with regard to the\nhuman character.\n\nNow, the curious thing with regard to \"X\" is that he is all along\nassuming this fundamental fact himself; though he utterly fails to put\ntwo and two together, and see how this fact conflicts with the\nomnipotence which he ascribes to legislation. Let us go back to the\nassertion, which embodies his whole practical argument, that the\nmajority of the voters in New York State could, without interfering with\nthe activity of any one of its citizens, limit incomes in any manner\nthey pleased, and alienate with even greater ease the property of every\nman at his death; and let us see what he hastens to say as the sequel to\nthis oracular utterance.\n\nThese powers of the sovereign majority, which he is apparently so\nanxious to invoke, would, he says, be practically much less formidable\nin their action than timid persons might anticipate. And why should they\nbe less formidable? \"Because,\" says \"X,\" \"although each man, by reason\nof his manhood alone, has an equal voice with every other man in making\nthe laws governing their common country, and regulating the distribution\nof the common property ... yet immense and incalculable differences\nexist in men's natural capacities for rendering honest service to\nsociety. Encouragement should, therefore, be given to every man to use\nall the gifts which he possesses to the fullest extent possible; and,\naccordingly, reasonable accumulations and the descent of these should be\nrespected.\" They should, he says, be respected. Yes--but for what\nreason? Because they encourage exceptional men, whose services are\nessential to society, to develop and use their capacities to \"the\nfullest extent possible\"; and this is merely another way of saying that,\nwithout the motive provided by the possibility of accumulation and\nbequest, the exceptional faculties would not be developed or used at\nall. Moreover, the amounts which may be accumulated and bequeathed,\nalthough they will be strictly limited, must, \"X\" says, be\nconsiderable. He suggests that incomes should be allowed up to L8,000,\nand bequeathable property up to L200,000. And here we come to a question\nwhich is still more pertinent than the preceding. Why must the\npermissible amounts of income and of bequeathable property be of\nproportions such as those which he contemplates? Why does he not take\nhis bill and write down quickly L200 of income instead of L8,000, and\nlimit bequeathable property to L2,000 instead of L200,000? Because he\nevidently recognises that the men whose possible services to society are\n\"immensely and incalculably greater\" than those of the majority of their\nfellow citizens would not be tempted by a reward which, reduced to its\nsmallest proportions, would not be very largely in excess of what was\nattainable by more ordinary exertions. In his formal statement of his\ncase, he says that the amount of the reward would be entirely determined\nby what _ought_ to be sufficient for the purpose in the estimation of\nthe voting majority; and he mentions the sums in question as those on\nwhich they would probably fix. And it is, of course, quite imaginable\nthat the majority, in making either these or any other estimates, might\nbe right. But what \"X\" fails altogether to see is that, if the majority\nof the citizens _were_ right, such sums would not be sufficient because\nthe majority of citizens happened to think that they ought to be. They\nwould be sufficient because they were felt to be sufficient by the\nminority who were invited to earn them, at whose feelings the majority\nwould have made a shrewd or a lucky guess. A thousand men with\nfishing-rods might meet in an inn parlour and vote that such and such\nflies were sufficient to attract trout. But it lies with the trout to\ndetermine whether or no he will rise to them. It is a question, not of\nwhat the fishermen think, but of what the trout thinks; and the\nfishermen's thoughts are effective only when they coincide with the\ntrout's.\n\nSo long, then, as society desires to get the best work out of its\ncitizens, and so long as some men are, in the words of \"X,\" \"immensely\nand incalculably\" more efficient than the great mass of their fellows,\nand so long as their efficiency requires, as \"X\" admits that it does,\nsome exceptional reward to induce these men to develop it, these men\nthemselves, in virtue of their inherent characters, must primarily\ndetermine what the reward shall be; and not all the majorities in the\nworld, however unanimous, could make a reward sufficient if the\nparticular minority in question did not feel it to be so. The majority\nmight, by making a sufficient reward unattainable, easily prevent the\nservices from being rendered at all; but, unless they are to forgo the\nservices, the majority can only obtain them on terms which will, in the\nlast resort, depend on the men who are to render them.\n\nNow, in what I have been urging thus far--which practically comes to\nthis, that the sovereignty popularly ascribed to democratic majorities\nis an illusion--not socialists only, but other advocates of popular\ngovernment also, will alike be against me, as the promulgator of some\nblasphemous paradox. It will be easy, however, to show them that their\nobjections are quite mistaken, and that the exceptional powers of\ndictation which have just been ascribed to a minority are so far from\nbeing inconsistent with the real powers of the majority that the latter,\nwhen properly understood, are seen to be their complement and their\ncounterpart. For, though socialists and thinkers like \"X\" ascribe to\nmajorities powers which they do _not_ possess, we shall find that\nmajorities do actually possess others, in some ways very much greater,\nof which such thinkers have thus far taken no cognisance at all. I have\nsaid that minorities can dictate their own terms to majorities which\ndesire to secure their services, the reason being that the former are\nalone competent to determine what treatment will supply them with a\nmotive to exert themselves. What holds good of minorities as opposed to\nmajorities holds good in essentials, though in a somewhat different\nform, of majorities as opposed to such minorities.\n\nLet us turn again to a matter to which I have referred already--namely,\nthe family life of the citizens of any race or nation. This results from\npropensities in a vast number of human beings which, although they are\nsimilar, are in each case independent. These propensities give rise to\nlegislation, the object of which is to prescribe rules by which their\nsatisfaction may be made secure; but the propensities are so far from\noriginating in legislation that no legislation which seriously\ninterfered with them would be tolerated. Socialists themselves have\ncontinually admitted this very thing. The Italian socialist, Giovanni\nRossi, for instance, who attempted about fifteen years ago to found a\nsocialistic colony in Brazil--an attempt which completely\nfailed--attributed its failure largely to this particular cause--namely,\nthe impossibility of inducing the colonists to conform to any rules of\nthe community by which family life was interfered with. Here we have an\nexample of democracy in its genuine form, rendering powerless what\naffected to be democratic legislation. We have the cumulative power of\nsimilar human characters compelling legislation to limit itself to what\nthese characters spontaneously demand. And now let us go a step--a very\nshort step--further. The family propensities in question show their\ndictatorial power, not only in the limitations which they impose on\npositive laws, but also in the character which they impose on the\nmaterial surroundings of existence, especially in the material structure\nof the dwellings of all classes except the lowest. All are constructed\nwith a view to keeping the family group united, and each family group\nseparate from all others. Further, if the natural family propensities\nthus affect the structure of the dwelling, other propensities, more\nvarious in detail, but in each case equally spontaneous, determine what\ncommodities shall be put into it.\n\nAnd this fact brings us back to our own more immediate subject--namely,\nthe power of the few and of the many in the sphere of economic\nproduction. The man of exceptional industrial capacity becomes rich in\nthe modern world by producing goods, or by rendering services, which\nothers consume or profit by, and for which they render him a return.\nBut, in order that they may take, and render him this return for what he\noffers them, the goods and the services must be such that the many\ndesire to have them. All the highest productive ability that has ever\nbeen devoted to the business of cheapening and multiplying commodities,\nor rendering social services, would be absolutely futile unless these\ncommodities and services satisfied tastes or wants existing in various\nsections of the community. The eliciting of such wants or tastes depends\nvery often, and in progressive communities usually, on a previous supply\nof the commodities or services that minister to them--as we see, for\nexample, in the case of tobacco, of the telegraph, and of the bicycle;\nbut, when once the demands have been elicited, they are essentially\ndemocratic in their nature. Each customer is like a voter who\npractically gives his vote for the kind of goods which he desires to\nhave supplied to him. He gives his vote under no compulsion. He is under\nthe manipulation of no party or wire-puller; and the men by whose\nability the goods are cheapened and multiplied are bound to determine\ntheir character by the number of votes cast for them.[15]\n\nThus, while--so long as the productivity of labour is intensified, as it\nis in the modern world, by the ability of the few who direct labour--the\nlabouring majority can never be free in their technical capacity of\nproducers, they are free, and must always remain free, in respect of\ntheir tastes as consumers. In other words, demand is essentially\ndemocratic, while supply, in proportion to its sustained and enhanced\nabundance, is essentially oligarchic.\n\nNow, that demand is essentially democratic, and depends on the tastes\nand characters of those by whom the demands are made, nobody will be\ninclined to deny. But if we turn our attention from society, taken as a\nwhole, to the exceptionally able minority on whom the business of supply\ndepends, we shall find that these men, in their turn, form similarly a\nsmall democracy in themselves, and make, as suppliers, their own demands\nalso--a demand for an economic reward, or an amount of personal wealth,\nnot, indeed, necessarily equal to the amount of wealth produced by them,\nbut bearing a proportion to it which is, in their own estimation,\nsufficient. This demand made by the exceptional producer rests on\nexactly the same basis as does that of the average customer. It rests on\nthe tastes and characters of the men who make it; and it is just as\nimpossible for the many to decide by legislation that the few shall put\nforth the whole of their exceptional powers for the sake of one reward,\nwhen what they want is another, as it is for the few to make the many\nbuy snuff when they want tobacco, or buy green coats when they want\nblack.[16]\n\nThat such is the case will, to those who may be inclined to doubt it,\nbecome more evident if they consider with more attention than they are\ngenerally accustomed to exercise what the main attraction of great\nwealth is for the men who in the modern world are the producers of it on\nthe greatest scale. Socialists and similar reformers--the people who\nprincipally busy themselves with discussing what this attraction is--are\nthe people who are least capable of forming any true opinion about it.\nThey not only have, as a rule, no experience of wealth themselves, but\nthey are further generically distinguished by a deficiency of those\npowers that create it. They are like men with no muscles, who reason\nabout the temperament of a prize-fighter; and their conception of what\nwealth means for those who produce and possess it is apt, in\nconsequence, to be of the most puerile kind. It is founded, apparently,\non their conception of what a greedy boy, without pocket-money, feels\nwhen he stares at the tarts lying in a pastry-cook's window. To them it\nseems that the desire for great wealth means simply the desire for\npurely sensual self-indulgence--especially for the eating and drinking\nof expensive food and wine. Consequently, whenever they wish to\ncaricature a capitalist they invariably represent him as a man with a\nhuge, protuberant stomach. The folly of this conception is sufficiently\nshown by the fact that many of the greatest of fortune-makers have, in\ntheir personal habits, been abstemious and even niggardly to a degree\nwhich has made them proverbial; and that, even in the case of those who\nvalue personal luxury, the maximum of self-indulgence which any single\nhuman organism can appreciate, is obtainable by a hundredth part of the\nfortunes for the production of which such men work. The real secret of\nthe attraction which wealth has for those who create it lies in the fact\nthat wealth is simply a form of power. These men are made conscious by\nexperience, as less gifted men are not, that they can, by the exercise\nof their own mental energies, add indefinitely to the wealth-producing\nforces of the community. They feel the machine respond to their own\nexceptional management of it; they see the output of wealth varied and\nmultiplied at their will; and thus the results of their specialised\npower as producers are neither more nor less than this same internal\npower converted into an external, an indeterminate and universalised\nform; and the reason why they will never produce wealth merely in order\nto be deprived of it is that no one will exercise power merely in order\nto lose it, and allow it to pass into the hands of other people. These\nmen, as experience, especially in America, shows us, are constantly\nwilling to use this power for the benefit of their kind generally; but\nthis is no more a sign that they would be willing to allow it to be\nforcibly taken from them than the fact that a man is willing to give a\nshilling to a beggar in the street is a sign that he would allow the\nbeggar to steal it out of his waistcoat-pocket.\n\nSo long as differences in personal power exist, especially in such power\nas affects the material circumstances of mankind, these differences in\npower, let governments take what form they please, will necessarily\nassert and embody themselves in the very structure of human society;\nand socialists are only able to obscure this fact from anybody either by\na childish theory of modern production which they themselves are now\nrepudiating, or else by a psychology even more laboriously childish,\nwhich would at once be exposed were it tested by so much as six months'\nexperience. An interesting admission of the truth of this may be found\nin an unlikely place--namely, a work written some years ago by a\nsocialist of considerable talent, which shows how the errors of at least\na number of socialists are due, not to any defect in their reasoning\npowers, as such, but to a want of balanced knowledge of human nature in\ngeneral, a want which in certain respects renders their reasoning\nfutile. The work to which I refer is a work by a socialistic novelist,\nwho was also an accomplished naturalist--the late Mr. Grant Allen. It is\ncalled _The Woman Who Did_.\n\nThe immediate object of the writer was to exhibit the institution of\nmarriage as the cause of what he was pleased to regard as woman's\ndegradation and slavery; and his heroine is a young lady of highly\nrespectable parentage, who proposes to regenerate womanhood by living\nwith, and having children by, a man, without submitting to the\nhumiliation of any legal bond. She accomplishes her purpose, and has a\ndaughter, whose position, under our false civilisation, becomes so\ndisagreeable in consequence of her illegitimate birth, that the mother\nat last commits suicide, in order to deliver her from the presence of\nsuch an embarrassing parent. In the author's view she is a martyr, and a\nmodel for immediate imitation. Ludicrous, however, as the book is in its\nmain scheme and in its object, the author shows great acuteness in a\nnumber of his incidental observations. He is, for example, constantly\ninsisting on the fact that the institution of private property, which\nsocialism aims at revolutionising, is merely one embodiment of a general\nprinciple of individualism of which marriage and the family are another,\nand that the two stand and fall together. But an admission yet more\nimportant than this is as follows: So that nothing may be wanting to the\nbitterness of the heroine's sublime martyrdom, the author represents her\ndaughter--and he does this with considerable skill--as developing from\nher earliest childhood all those tastes and prejudices (an instinctive\nsympathy with those ordinary motives and standards) against which the\nmother's whole life, and her education of her daughter, had been at war.\n\"Herminia,\" says Mr. Allen, \"had done her best\" to indoctrinate the\nchild with the pure milk of the emancipating social gospel; \"but the\nchild herself seemed to hark back, of internal congruity, to the lower\nand vulgarer moral plane of her remoter ancestry. There is,\" he\nproceeds, \"no more silly and persistent error than the belief of parents\nthat they can influence to any appreciable degree the moral ideas and\nimpulses of their children. These things have their springs in the\nbases of character; they are the flower of individuality; and they\ncannot be altered after birth by the foolishness of preaching.\" Let us\nread this passage, with the alteration of only a word or two, and it\nforms an admirable criticism of the more recent speculations of the\nparty to which Mr. Allen belonged. There is no more silly and persistent\nerror on the part of socialists than the belief that they can influence\nto any appreciable degree the moral ideas and impulses of the citizens\nof any community, or that these things, which are the flower of\ncongenital individuality, can be altered after birth by the foolishness\nof socialism.\n\nBut the arguments at the service of socialism are not exhausted yet.\nEven if voting majorities should be unable to transform human nature,\nthat men of power shall become willing to exert their power only in\norder that they may be deprived of it, there is a class of socialists\nwho declare that what is impossible with mere human democracy, will be\nrendered possible by the divine influence of a rightly preached\nChristianity. To Christian socialists, as such, I have as yet made no\nspecial reference; nor will it be necessary now to be very prolix in our\ndealings with them; but in their attitude and their equipment for the\ntask of effecting an economic revolution, they throw so strong a light\non the character of contemporary socialism generally that a brief\nconsideration of their gospel will be interesting and highly\ninstructive, and will fitly lead us to the conclusion of this part of\nour argument.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[15] Mr. G. Wilshire, in his criticism of the argument, as stated by me\nin America, says that, under the existing system, the consumer is _not_\nfree to choose what goods he will buy, but has them thrust on him by the\ncapitalist producer. Yet he, and socialists in general, complain at the\nsame time of the competition between capitalists, which is simply a\ncompetition to supply what consumers most desire. Here and there, when\nno competition exists, one firm can force its goods, if they are of the\nnature of necessaries, on the local public. But under the existing\nsystem this is only an occasional incident. Under socialism it would be\nuniversal. When tobacco is a state monopoly, state tobacco is forced on\nthe great mass of the people.\n\n[16] Mr. G. Wilshire admits, on behalf of socialists, that the argument\nof this chapter is so far correct that no democracy can make men of\nability exercise their ability if they do not wish to do so; and that if\nthey wish for exceptional rewards they will be able to demand them. A\nMelba, he says, under socialism, would be able, if she wished for it, to\nget probably even higher remuneration than she does to-day. But, he\ncontinues, under socialism, such men and women, though they could get\nsuch rewards, will be so changed that they will not wish for them. A\nMelba will then sing for the mere pleasure of singing.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nCHRISTIAN SOCIALISM AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SECULAR DEMOCRACY.\n\nChristian socialism, as a doctrine which is preached to-day, might, for\nanything that its name can tell us to the contrary, be as different from\nordinary socialism as is Christian Science from secular--as the science\nof Mrs. Eddy is from the science of Mr. Edison. We can judge of it only\nby examining the utterances of its leading exponents. For this reason,\nalthough I had long been familiar with the utterances of persons who\ncall themselves Christian socialists in England, I felt bound to decline\nan invitation to discuss the subject in America, unless I could be\nfurnished with some recent and formal version of the gospel as it is\npreached there. Accordingly there was sent to me the precise kind of\ndocument I desired. It formed the principal article in a journal called\n_The Christian Socialist_. Its author was a clergyman,[17] and it was\nentitled \"The Gospel for To-day.\" It was what I expected that it would\nbe. It reproduced in almost every particular the thoughts and moods\ndistinctive of Christian socialists in England; and this article I will\nhere take as a text.\n\nThe writer, exhibiting a candour which many of his secular brethren\nwould do well to imitate, starts with an attack on all existing forms of\ndemocracy, which are all, he says, based on a profound and fatal\nfallacy. This is the assumption that all men are born equal, from which\nassumption the practical conclusion is deduced that the best state of\nsociety is one which will allow each of these so-called equal beings to\nwork out his own happiness as best he can for himself, with the minimum\nof interference from his fellow-citizens or from the law. Now if, says\nour author, men were born equal in reality, such an individualistic\ndemocracy might perhaps work well enough. But men are not born equal.\nThe root of the difficulty lies here. In the economic sense, as in all\nothers, some men are incomparably more able than the great majority of\ntheir fellows, and even among the exceptionally able some are much abler\nthan the others. Consequently, if the principles of modern\nindividualistic democracy and modern individualistic economics are\nright, according to which the main motive of each should be to do the\nbest for himself with his own powers that he can--\"if it is duty to\ncompete if competition is the life of trade, then the battle for self\nmust ever go grimly on. The strong must subdue the weak, the rich the\npoor, the able the unable. Upon this basis the millionaire and the\nmulti-millionaire have a perfect right to roll up their untold millions,\neven as the working-man has a right to seek the highest wages that he\ncan get. All in different ways are seeking their own; and the keenest\ncompetitors are the best men. The prizes must go to the strongest and\nthe shrewdest. It is the survival of the fittest.\"\n\nSuch being the case, then, asks the writer, what does Christian\nsocialism aim at? It does not aim at making men equal in respect of\ntheir ability, for to do this would be quite impossible; but it aims at\nproducing an equality of a practical kind, by inducing the men whose\nability is most efficient to forgo all personal claims which are founded\non their own exceptional powers, so that the wealth which is at present\nsecured by these powers for themselves may in the future be divided\namong the mass of their less able brethren.\n\nThus the crucial change which the Christian socialists would accomplish\nis identical with that contemplated by their secular allies or rivals.\nBut the more completely it is invested with a definitely religious\nquality, the more lopsided, unstable, and self-stultifying is this\nchange seen to be; the more obvious becomes the absurdity of proposing\nto reorganise the entire business of the world on the basis of a\nconversion _de luxe_ which is to be the privilege of the few only,\nwhile the many are not only debarred, from the very nature of the case,\nfrom practising the renunciation in which the few are to find eternal\nlife, but are actually urged to cherish their existing economic\nconcupiscence, and raise it to a pitch of intensity which it never has\nreached before. The competent, to whose energies the riches of the world\nare due, are to put these riches away from them as though they were food\noffered by the devil. The incompetent, with thankless but perpetually\nopen mouths, are to swallow this same food as though it were the bread\nfrom heaven. In other words, according to our Christian socialist, the\nsin against the Holy Ghost, which is involved in the enjoyment of\nriches, is not the enjoyment of material superfluities itself, but only\nthe enjoyment of them by men who have been at the trouble of producing\nthem.\n\nThat this is what the message of Christian socialism comes to, little as\nthose who deliver it realise the fact themselves, is shown by an\nillustration obtruded on us by the author of \"The Gospel for To-day.\"\nThe evils of the existing situation, and its remoteness from the Kingdom\nof Christ, are, he says, exemplified in a very special way by the\npresent position of the clergy. \"If we churchmen,\" he says, \"want money\nfor our own purposes, we have to go to the trust magnates and kneel. We\nhave to kneel to 'the steel kings and the oil kings,' merely because\nthey are rich men.\" Now, how would Christian socialism alter a state of\nthings like this? Let us consider precisely what it is that our\nChristian socialist complains about. He obviously does not mean that he\nand his brother clergymen have to approach the trust magnates on their\nknees. The utmost he can mean is that, if they want these men to give\nthem money, they have to ask for it as a gift, and presumably make, when\nit is given, some acknowledgment to the donors. This it is which\nevidently sticks in the stomach of the humble follower of Christ whose\nself-portraiture we are now considering; for, if we confine ourselves to\nthe Christian element in his teaching, he proposes to alter the existing\nsituation only by kindling in the \"trust magnates\" such a fire of\nChristian philanthropy that they will have given him all he wants before\nhe has had time to ask for it, thus exonerating him from the duty of\nsaying \"Thank you\" for what he owes to another's goodness, and enabling\nhim to offer to the Lord that which has cost him nothing.\n\nAnd what the author of \"The Gospel for To-day\" urges on behalf of\nhimself and his clerical brethren is precisely what he urges on behalf\nof the less competent majority generally. Neither on them nor on the\nChristian clergy does the gospel of Christian socialism urge the duty of\nmaking any new sacrifice, or any new exertion, moral or physical, for\nthemselves. Just as the clergy are to learn no more of business than\nthey know now, but are to be relieved of the necessity for all prudence\nas to ways and means, so is the ordinary labourer to work no longer, no\nharder, and no better than he does now. On the contrary, his hours of\nlabour are to become ever less and less, and at the same time he is to\nreceive ever greater and greater wages. These are to be drawn from the\nproducts, not of himself but of his neighbour: and although he will owe\nthem solely to the virtue which his neighbour exercises, he is,\naccording to the Christian socialist programme, to demand them as though\nhis own incompetence gave him a sacred right to them.\n\nNow, apart from the fact that this gospel does resemble the Christian in\ndeclaring that, while salvation can be achieved only by sacrifice, and\nthat so far as the majority are concerned their sacrifice must be\nstrictly vicarious, we might well pause to inquire how either of its two\nmessages--that of economic asceticism for the few, and of economic\nconcupiscence for the many--has any relation to the gospel of Christ at\nall. According to any reasonable interpretation of the words and spirit\nof Christ, a labourer's desire to enjoy the utmost that he himself\nproduces is no less legitimate than natural; but it hardly ranks as one\nof the highest Christian virtues. How, we might ask, is it to acquire\nthis latter character by being turned into a desire for what is produced\nby other people? Again, on the other hand, though according to most of\nthe churches Christ did not condemn the possession of superfluous wealth\nas such, he certainly did not teach that the possession of it was\ngenerally necessary to salvation. It might therefore be justly urged,\nfrom the point of view of the few, that in proportion as Christ's\nvaluation of this transitory life was accepted by them, the duty of\nmelting down their own vases and candelabra in order that every\nworkman's spoon might have a thin plating of silver on it, would\nconstantly seem less and less, instead of more and more imperative. All\nthis might be urged, and more to the same effect; but we will content\nourselves with considering the matter under its purely practical aspect,\nand asking how any Christian clergymen--men presumably sane and\neducated--can propose, whether their programme be really Christian or\nno, to reorganise society on the basis of a moral conversion which is\nconfined to the few only--which would exact from the able minority the\nmaximum of effort and mortification, and secure the maximum of idleness\nand self-indulgence for the rest of the human race?\n\nTo this question it may be said that there are two answers. Admirable in\ncharacter as are multitudes of the Christian clergy, nobody will contend\nthat all of them are beyond reproach; nor will any such claim be made\nfor all those of them who profess socialism. And for some of this body\nit is hardly open to doubt that the preaching of socialism is nothing\nbetter than a species of ecclesiastical electioneering. In the language\nof the political wire-puller, it affords them a good \"cry\" with which to\ngo to the people. Why, they say in effect, should you listen to the\nagitator in the street, when we can give you something just as good from\nthe pulpit? What the message really means which they thus undertake to\ndeliver, they make no effort to understand. It will attract, or at least\nthey think so; and for the moment this is enough for them. Having\nprobably emptied their churches by talking traditional nonsense, they\nare willing to fill them by talking nonsense that has not even the merit\nof being traditional. We will not linger, however, over the case of men\nlike these. We will turn to that of others who are morally very much\nmore respectable, and whose condition of mind, moreover, is very much\nmore instructive. Of these we may take the author of \"The Gospel for\nTo-day\" as a type. He, we may assume, advocates his socialistic\nprogramme, not because he thinks that to do so is a shrewd clerical\nmanoeuvre, but because he honestly believes that his programme is at\nonce Christian and practicable. How does it come about, then, that an\neducated man like himself can believe in, and devote himself to\npreaching, doctrines so visionary and preposterous? Let us examine his\narguments more minutely, and we shall presently find our answer.\n\nBy his vigorous denunciation of the doctrine that all men are born\nequal, he shows us that he is capable to a certain extent of seeing\nthings as they are. But he sees them from a distance only, as though\nthey were a range of distant mountains whose aspect is falsely\nsimplified and constantly changed by clouds, and of whose actual\nconfiguration he has no idea whatever. Thus when he contemplates the\ninequalities of men's economic powers, these appear to him alternately\nin two different forms--as genuine powers of production and as powers of\nmere seizure--without his discerning where in actual life the operation\nof the one ends and the operation of the other begins: and, though for a\ncertain special purpose he admits, as we shall see presently, that some\nable men are able in the sense of being exceptionally productive, his\nthoughts and his feelings alike through the larger part of his argument\nare dominated by the idea that ability is merely acquisitive. This is\nshown by the fact that the two great productive enterprises which he\nsingles out as typical of modern wealth-getting generally are held up by\nhim as examples of acquisition pure and simple. \"The steel kings,\" he\nsays, \"did not invent steel. The oil kings did not invent oil.\" These\nare the gifts of nature, which nature offers to all; but the strong men\nabuse their strength by pushing forward and seizing them, and compelling\ntheir weaker brethren to pay them a tribute for their use. Steel and\nrefined oil he evidently looks upon as two natural products. He has no\nsuspicion that, as any school-boy could have told him, steel is an\nartificial metal which, as manufactured to-day, is one of the most\nelaborate triumphs of modern industrial genius. As to the oil by the\nlight of which he doubtless writes his sermons, he apparently thinks of\nit as existing fit for use in a lake, and ready to be dipped up by\neverybody in nice little tin cans, if only the oil kings having got to\nthe lake first, did not by their superior strength frighten other people\naway. Of the actual history of the production of usable oil, of the vast\nand marvellous system by which it is brought within reach of the\nconsumers, of the by-products which reduce its price--all of them the\nresults of concentrated economic ability, and requiring from week to\nweek its constant and renewed application--the author of \"The Gospel for\nTo-day\" apparently knows nothing. The oil kings and the steel kings,\naccording to his conception of them, need merely refrain from the\nexercise of their only distinctive power--that is to say, an exceptional\npower of seizing; and every Christian socialist in New York and\nelsewhere will have the same oil in his lamps that he has now, and a\nconstant supply of cutlery and all other forms of hardware, the sole\ndifference being that he will get them at half-price or for nothing, and\nhave the money thus saved to spend upon new enjoyments. And his\nconception of ability, as connected with the output of steel and oil, is\nhis conception of ability as applied to the production of goods\ngenerally.\n\nHe makes, however, one exception. There is, he admits, one form of\nability which does actually add to the wealth of the modern world, and\nmay possibly be credited with producing the largest part of it. This is\nthe faculty of invention. Here, at last, we seem to be listening to the\nlanguage of sober sense. But let us see what follows. Inventors, our\nauthor proceeds, being the types of exceptional ability which is really\nbeneficent and productive, are precisely the men who afford us our\nsurest grounds for believing in the possibility of that moral conversion\nwhich socialism proposes to effect among able men at large. For what, he\nsays, as a fact do we find the inventors doing? They invent, he says,\nfor the pure love of inventing, or else from a desire to do good to\ntheir fellow creatures. The thought of money for themselves never enters\ninto their minds. The selfish desire for money makes its appearance only\nwhen the strong man whose ability is merely acquisitive thrusts himself\non the scene, buys the inventors' inventions up, and then proceeds \"to\nwork them for all they are worth.\" These mere seizers of wealth, these\nappropriators of the inventions of others, need but to learn a lesson of\nabnegation which the inventors have learned already, or rather a lesson\nwhich is easier; for while these noble men, the inventors, have no wish\nto take what they produce, the majority of able men, such as the steel\nkings and the oil kings, need merely forbear to take. Competition, in\nshort, as it actually exists to-day--the competition which Christian\nsocialism will abolish--is simply a competition in taking; and in order\nto abolish it, the strong men, when they have taken a fair share, have\nbut to stand aside, to become as though they were weak, and so give\nothers a chance equal to their own.\n\nHere, indeed, we have a conception, or rather a vague picture, of the\nfacts of modern industry, and of human nature as connected with it,\nwhich is worthy of a man from dreamland. Every detail mentioned is\nfalse. Every essential detail is omitted. In the first place, the\ndisinterested inventor, from whose behaviour our author reasons, is\npurely a figment of his own clerical brain. Inventors in actual life, as\nevery one knows who has had occasion to deal with them, are generally\ndistinguished by an insane desire for money, by the wildest\nover-estimates of the wealth which their inventions will ultimately\nbring them, or by a greed which will sell them for a trifle, provided\nthis be paid immediately. In the second place, inventions, even the\ngreatest, so long as they represent the power of invention merely, are\nutterly deficient in all practical value. So long as they exist nowhere\nexcept in the author's brain, or drawings, or in descriptions, or even\nin the form of models, they might, so far as the world is concerned,\nhave never existed at all. In the former cases they are dreams; in the\nlast case they are toys. They are brought down into the arena of actual\nlife only when, like souls provided with bodies, they cease to be ideas\nor toys, and become machines or contrivances manufactured on a\ncommercial basis; and in order to effect successfully this practical\ntransformation, countless processes and countless faculties are involved\nother than those comprised in intellectual invention itself.\n\nThere are cases, no doubt, in which the practical talents necessary for\nrealising an invention and the faculty of invention itself coexist in\nthe same man; but the inventor, when this happens, is not an inventor\nonly. He is not only a master of ideas; he is a master of things and\nmen. Such a combination is, however, far from common. As a rule, if his\ninventions are to be of any use to the world, the inventor must ally\nhimself with men of another type, and these are the very men whom the\nauthor of \"The Gospel for To-day\" conceives of as simply monopolising\nand \"working for all they are worth\" contrivances which would otherwise\nhave been given to the world gratis. He does not see that, if men such\nas the steel kings and the oil kings did not work inventions for all\nthey are worth, the inventions themselves would be practically worth\nnothing.\n\nLet the reader reflect on the astounding ignorance of the world, and\nespecially of the world of industry, which is betrayed with so much\nnaivete by this socialist of the Christian pulpit. He knows so little of\nthe commonest facts of history that he looks upon steel as a ready-made\nproduct of nature, and all the mills of the steel trust as merely a\nmeans of monopolising knives, bridges, rails, and locomotive-engines,\nwhich the citizens of America would otherwise be able to take at will,\nlike a bevy of school-children helping themselves from a heap of apples.\nHe imagines that inventions, as they form themselves in the head of the\ninventor, leap direct into use, without any intervening process; while\nthe inventor himself is a being so superior to the world he works in,\nthat the rapture of being allowed to work for it is the only reward he\ncovets, that he has never dreamed of such selfish things as profits, and\ndoes not even know the meaning of a patent or a founder's share; and\nthat the oil kings and the steel kings and all other able men, will save\nsociety by following in the footsteps of this chimera.\n\nSuch are the wild, childish, and disconnected ideas entertained by our\nclerical author of the world which he proposes to reform; and he is in\nthis respect not peculiar. On the contrary he is a most favourable type\nof Christian socialists generally; and Christian socialists, in respect\nof their mental and moral equipment, are simply secular socialists of\nthe more modern and educated type, with their ignorances and credulities\naccentuated, but not otherwise altered, by the solemnities of religious\nlanguage, and a vague religious sentiment which achieves a facile\nintensity because it is never restrained by fact.\n\nSocialists, in short, of all schools, are socialists because they are\nignorant of, or fail to apprehend, certain facts or principles of nature\nand of human nature which are essential to the complicated process of\nmodern productive industry; or it is perhaps a truer way of putting the\ncase to say that they could not be socialists unless they were thus\nignorant. In this they resemble the devisers of perpetual motions, or\nscientific and infallible systems for breaking the bank at a\nroulette-table. In so far as they are socialists--that is to say, in so\nfar as they differ from other reformers--they are men aiming at\nsomething which is in its nature impracticable; and in order to\nrepresent it to themselves and others as practicable, they must\nnecessarily ignore or fail to understand something which, in actual\nlife, stands in the way of its being so. The perpetual-motionist\nbelieves that a perpetual motion is practicable, because he fails to see\nthat out of no machine whatever is it possible to get more force than is\nput into it, and that one pound-weight will not wind up another. The\nsystem-monger sees that if a succession of similar stakes are placed on\nred or black, or any one of the thirty-six numbers, the bank always has\nzero in its favour; but by placing a number of stakes simultaneously in\nintricate combinations, or by graduating them according to results, he\nimagines that he can invert the situation, when all he can do is to\ndisguise it. He often disguises it most effectually; but in the long run\nhe does no more. Like a protuberance in an air cushion, which if pushed\ndown in one place reappears in another, the original advantage of the\nbank infallibly ends in reasserting itself. The system-monger fails to\nsee this for one reason only--that, having disguised, he thinks that he\nhas eliminated, a fundamental fact of the situation. Socialists, in so\nfar as they are socialists, reason in the same way. Though most of them\nnow recognise, like the author of \"The Gospel for To-day,\" that the\neconomic efficiencies of men are in the highest degree unequal, they\npropose out of an inequality of functions to produce an equality of\nconditions. The details of the changes by which they propose to effect\nthis result, or the grounds on which they seek to represent this result\nas possible, vary like the details of the systems of ingenious gamblers.\nBut whatever these details may be, whether they are details of scheme or\nargument, the essential element of each is the omission of some\nfundamental fact--or, rather, of one protean fact--by which socialistic\nthinkers are often honestly confused, because it assumes, as they shift\ntheir positions, any number of different aspects. This is the fact that\nout of unequal men it is absolutely impossible to construct a society of\nequals.\n\nTwo illustrations, taken from the history of socialistic thought, will\nshow how socialists hide this fact from themselves, first by a fallacy\nof one kind, then by a fallacy of another kind; and how, wherever it is\nlocated, it is the essential factor in their argument.\n\nIn their endeavour to prove the possibility of an equalisation, absolute\nor approximate, of economic conditions, Karl Marx and the earlier\nsocialists started with two main doctrines. The one was a moral\ndoctrine; the other was an economic. The moral doctrine was that, as a\nmatter of eternal justice, every man has a right to the whole of what is\nproduced by him. The economic doctrine was that, as a matter of fact,\nthe only producers of wealth are the mass of manual labourers, and\nthat, with certain unimportant exceptions, the economic values produced\nby all labourers are equal. Hence he argued that all wealth ought to go\nto the labourers, and that all labourers were entitled to approximately\nequal shares of it. The later socialists aim at reaching the same\nconclusion, and they start with two doctrines, a moral and an economic,\nlikewise. Having arrived, however, at a truer theory of\nproduction--having recognised that labour is not the sole producer, and\nthat some men produce incalculably more than others--they have, in order\nto support their demand for an equality of possession, been obliged to\nsupplement their repudiation of the economic theory of their\npredecessors, by repudiating their theory of eternal justice also, and\nintroducing another of a wholly opposite character. While Karl Marx\ncontended that, in justice, production and possession were inseparable,\nthe later socialists contend that there is no connection between them,\nand that it is perfectly easy to convert to this moral view every human\nbeing who is likely to suffer by its adoption. Thus the difference\nbetween the earlier and the later socialists is as follows: The earlier\nsocialists started with a theory of justice which is in harmony with\ncommon-sense and the general instincts of mankind; and this theory was\npressed into the service of socialism only by being associated with a\nfalse theory of production. The later socialists start with a truer\ntheory of production; and they reconcile this with their own practical\nprogramme, only by associating it with a false moral psychology. In each\ncase a fallacy is the basis of the socialistic conclusion; and without a\nfallacy somewhere--a fallacy which is pushed about, like a mouse under a\ntable-cloth--no socialistic conclusion even tends to develop itself from\nthe premises.\n\nAnd what is true of the main arguments of the later, as of the earlier\nsocialists, is equally true of their subsidiary arguments also, from\nthose which refer to the generalisations of the sociologists of the\nnineteenth century, and base themselves on the confusion between\nspeculative truth and practical, down to those which are drawn from the\nabsurd psychological supposition that all motives are interchangeable,\nand that those which actuate the artist, the anchorite, and the soldier\ncan be made to replace by means of a vote or a sermon those which at\npresent actuate the masters of industrial enterprise. On whatever\nargumentative point the socialists, as socialists, lay stress, there,\nunder one form or another, their root-fallacy reappears. In short, their\narguments are illusionary in proportion as they themselves value them.\nAnd in this there is nothing wonderful. The more logically and\ningeniously men reason from premises, of which the one most essential to\ntheir conclusions is radically false to fact, the more punctually on\nevery critical occasion is this fallacy bound to reassert itself as the\nlogical basis of that which they desire to prove.\n\nThe question, however, still remains to be answered of why a large body\nof men, like the educated apostles of socialism, who exhibit as a class\nno typical inferiority of intellect, unite in accepting, as though drawn\nto it by some chemical affinity, one particular error which\ndispassionate common-sense disdains, and which the actual history of the\nwhole human race refutes? In the case of some preachers of socialism the\nanswer lies on the surface. Socialism is of all creeds that which it is\neasiest to present to the ignorant; and in these days, like \"patriotism\"\nin the days of Dr. Johnson, it is often \"the last refuge of a\nscoundrel,\" or of a desperate and ambitious fool. But I here put such\ncases altogether aside. What I here have in view are men who are morally\nand intellectually honest, and many of whom, indeed, are intellectually\nabove the average. How is the affinity for one common error, and the\npassionate promulgation of it in forms, many of which are conflicting,\nto be accounted for in the case of men like these?\n\nThe answer to this is to be found, not in their intellect, but in their\ntemperament. It is a well-known fact that men, otherwise of high\ncapacity, are incapable of mastering any but the humblest branches of\nmathematics. With the men who become socialists the case is closely\nsimilar. Just as certain men are incapable of dealing with the\nabstractions of mathematics, so are the socialists men who, in virtue of\ntheir constitutions or temperaments, are incapable of comprehending\naccurately the concrete facts of life, and are consequently as unable\nwith any practical accuracy, to reason about them as a professor of\nmathematics would be to reason about the value of strawberries, if he\nknew only their weights or numbers, but had no expert judgment with\nregard to their condition or quality.\n\nTo ascertain how the socialistic temperament thus debilitates the\nfaculties, it will be enough to note certain characteristics distinctive\nof those possessing it. Such persons are all distinguished, though\nnaturally in various degrees, by an undue preponderance of the emotional\nover the critical faculties, whence there arises in them what, to borrow\na phrase of President Roosevelt's, we may aptly call an _inflammation_\nof the social sympathies. This makes such persons magnify into\nintolerable wrongs all sorts of pains and inconveniences which most men\naccept as part of the \"rough and tumble\" of life; and it thus renders\nthem abnormally impatient of the actual, and abnormally preoccupied with\nthe ideal. The ideal vision which they see arising out of the actual is\nfor them so illuminated, as though by a kind of limelight, that the\ndetails of the actual, thrown into comparative obscurity, either cannot\nbe minutely distinguished by them, or, like the words of an unwelcome\ntalker, cannot fix their attention. Without habitual concentration of\nthe attention on the subject-matter with which reason deals, no\nreasoning can deal with it to any practical purpose; and men of that\nclass from which socialists of the higher kind are recruited, are men\nwho fail to understand the modern industrial process, because they are\nhindered by their temperament from giving a sufficient attention to its\ndetails. They derive from them vivid impressions, but no practical\nknowledge, like Turner when he painted a train swathed in its own\nvapour, and flushing the wet air with the fires of its lamps and\nfurnace. From a study of Turner's picture of \"Rain, Steam, and Speed,\"\nit would be impossible for any human being to conjecture how a\nlocomotive was constructed. It would be still more impossible to form\nany judgment as to how its slide-valves, or its blast, or the tubes of\nits boiler might be improved. It is similarly impossible for men of the\nsocialistic temperament to understand the general process of industry,\nor to judge how it can and how it can not be altered, from the purely\nspectacular impressions which its intricate parts produce on them.\n\nBut the ingrained inability of such men to understand that which they\nwould revolutionise does not reveal itself in their errors of theory\nonly. It reveals itself still more strikingly in their own relations to\nlife. If we allow for exceptional cases, such as that of Robert Owen,\nwho was in his earlier days a competent man of business, we shall find\nthat the theorists who desire to socialise wealth are generically\ndeficient in the higher energies that produce it. Though they doubtless\ncould, like most men who are not cripples or idiots, make a living by\nsome form of manual labour, they have none of them done anything to\nenlarge the powers of industry, or even to sustain them at their present\npitch of efficiency. They have never made two blades of grass grow where\none blade grew before. They have never applied chemistry to the\ncommercial manufacture of chemicals. They have never organised the\nsystems or improved the ships and engines by which food finds its way\nfrom the prairies to the cities which would else be starving. If in some\ncity or district an old industry declines they demand with tears that\nthe thousands thus thrown out of employment shall be set by the state to\ndo or produce something, even though this be a something which is not\nwanted by anybody. They never set themselves to devise, as was done in\nthe English Midlands, some new commodity, such as the modern bicycle,\nwhich was not only a means of providing the labourers with a\nmaintenance, but was also a notable addition to the wealth of the world\nat large. They fail to do these things for the simple reason that they\ncannot do them; and they cannot do them because they are deficient alike\nin the interest requisite for understanding how they are done, and in\nthe concentrated practical energy which is no less requisite for the\ndoing of them.\n\nAt the end of an address in which I had been dealing with this subject\nat New York, a young man, one of my hearers, told me that I had been\nputting into words what had long been borne in on himself by his own\nstudies and observations--the fact, namely, that the social leaders of\nmen are divided into two classes, _those who dream about reforming the\nindustrial business of the world, and those, an opposite type, who alone\nadvance and accomplish it_. Here we have the conclusion of the whole\nmatter. These two classes are contrasted, not because in mere intellect\none is inferior to the other, but because when they are dealing with the\nindustrial affairs of life these affairs appeal to them in two\ncontrasted ways. One of these classes takes men and nature as they are.\nWith the utmost minuteness it masters the secrets of the latter, with\nthe utmost minuteness it directs the actions of the former; and in\nseeking wealth for itself it brings about those conditions which alone\ncan make added wealth a practical possibility for all. The other class,\noccupied not with what is but what ought to be, fails to understand what\ncan be, because it does not understand what is. The men of whom this\nclass is composed--the men whose temperamental deficiency now finds its\nfullest expression in socialism, as it did formerly in theories of\nultra-democratic individualism, are like amateur architects, and amateur\nsanitary engineers, who, thinking in pictures, and having no knowledge\nof structure, condemn existing houses and existing systems of drainage,\nand would replace them with palaces which no builder could build, with\narches which would collapse from the weight of their own materials, and\nmagnificent cloacae the waters in which would have to run uphill.\n\nThe theory, then, of socialism, let it take what form it will--the\ntheory which represents as practicable by one device or another the\nsocial equalisation of economically unequal men--is a theory which, in\nminds which are intellectually honest, can develop itself only in\nproportion as these minds are incapable of grasping in their connected\ncompleteness the actual facts of life; and that such is the case has\nbeen illustrated in the preceding chapters by a systematic analysis of\nall the crucial arguments on which socialists have rested their case\nfrom the earliest day of socialistic thought to the latest.\n\nThe reader, however, must observe the manner in which this statement is\nqualified. In speaking of the arguments of the socialists, I speak of\nthose that are crucial only--that is to say, of those arguments used by\nsocialistic thinkers in support of their programme in so far as that\nprogramme is peculiar. It is necessary to note this because, as a matter\nof fact, with such of their arguments as are proper to socialism only,\nthe philosophers of socialism and their disciples frequently associate\nothers which are not peculiar to the socialistic scheme at all, but\nwhich nevertheless multitudes of men who call themselves socialists\nregard as being at once the most important and practicable parts of it;\nand these I have in consequence reserved for separate treatment. They\nare three in number, and are as follows:\n\nThe first relates to the remuneration of the ordinary manual labourer,\nand deals with the question of what his just remuneration is. According\nto Marx this question is easily settled. Of every thousand labourers\nassociated in any given industry, each produces, with few and\nunimportant exceptions, a thousandth part of the whole exchangeable\nproduct; and his just remuneration is a thousandth part of the value of\nit. The intellectual socialists of to-day, while repudiating as we have\nseen the doctrine that the labourer's claim to remuneration is limited\nto the values produced by him, and contending that he has a further\nright to the product of the ability of others, constantly declare that,\neven according to the moral standard of Marx, he is usually defrauded at\npresent of a large part of his due; or that, in most if not all\nindustries, his wages represent but a part of the full value produced by\nhim. Whether this is so or not is a question not of theory but of fact,\nand one which can only be answered by discovering some intelligible\nbasis on which the values produced by labour in a general way may be\nestimated, as distinct from those produced by effort of other kinds.\nWith this question I shall deal in the following chapter.\n\nThe second relates to those forms of individual income which are covered\nby the word interest, when used in a comprehensive sense. It being\nadmitted by the later socialists, in opposition to the earlier, that the\ndirective ability of the few is, in the modern world, a productive\nagency no less truly than labour is, many of these socialists are now\nanxious to concede that the man of ability is entitled to such values,\nno matter how large, as are due to the active exercise of his own\nexceptional powers; but they contend that, as soon as his personal\nactivity ceases, his claim to any influx of further wealth should\ntherewith cease also. Let him spend his accumulations, they say, on his\nown gratifications as he will; but neither he nor his descendants can be\nsuffered in moral justice to hold or apply them in such a manner that\nthey will renew themselves, and yield an income to recipients who do\nnothing to make them fructify. To numbers of people who repudiate most\nof the socialistic programme, this doctrine as to interest appeals as at\nonce just and practicable. If the state could appropriate all incomes\ndue to interest, as distinct from those which represent the product of\nactive ability, an enormous fund would, they think, be available for\ngeneral distribution, and the ideals of socialism, in so far as they are\npracticable or desirable, might thus be realised by other than\nsocialistic means. This argument, likewise, will have its own\nchapter--or rather two chapters--allotted to it.\n\nThe third of these arguments or proposals which, though not in\nthemselves socialistic, are popularly associated with socialism, relates\nto equality of opportunity. To this also I will devote a separate\nchapter.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[17] While these pages were being corrected for the press, a number of\nutterances have been made by English clerics--Episcopalian and\nNonconformist--precisely similar in purpose and spirit to those of the\nauthor here quoted.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nTHE JUST REWARD OF LABOUR AS ESTIMATED BY ITS ACTUAL PRODUCTS\n\nSince the educated socialists of to-day admit that in the modern world\nwealth is produced by two functionally different classes--a majority who\nlabour and a minority by whom this labour is directed; or by two\ndifferent faculties--namely, labour and directive ability--the question\nof how much of the total product or its value is produced by one class\nor agency, and how much by the other, is, for all social reformers, and\nnot for socialists only, a question of the first importance; for in the\nminds of numbers, who care little about ideal transfigurations of\nsociety, the doctrines of socialism leave one vivid conviction, which is\nthis--that, though the labourers in the modern world do not produce\neverything, though the ability of those directing them is a productive\nagent also, and though part of the wealth of modern nations is\nundoubtedly produced by this, yet the men of ability produce much less\nthan they manage to keep, while the labourers produce much more than is\nrepresented by the wages which they get; that labour in this way, even\nif in no other, is suffering at present a general and intolerable wrong;\nand that socialism is simply a system by which this wrong will be\nrighted.[18]\n\nNow, this alleged wrong is essentially an affair of quantity. If the\nproducts of any typical firm--one, let us say, which produces\nchemicals--are represented by the number a hundred, and if fifty\nrepresents the amount which at present is the share of labour, the rest\nbeing taken by men of directive ability--a picked body of organisers,\nchemists, and inventors--labour, it is contended, produces more than the\nfifty, which is all that it at present gets. Yes; but how much more? It\nis not contended that it produces the entire hundred. Does it produce,\nthen, sixty, or sixty-five, or seventy, or eighty-three, or what? Unless\nsuch a wrong as this can have some extent assigned to it--unless it can\nbe measured approximately by reference to some intelligible standard--it\nis not only difficult to deal with it; it is impossible to be sure that\nit exists. Of course we are here not contemplating individual cases.\nThat some employes may, under existing conditions, get less than their\nwork is worth, is possible and likely enough. It is equally likely or\npossible that others may get more. We must confine ourselves to what\nhappens generally. We must take labour as a whole, on the one hand, and\ndirective ability on the other, and ask how we may estimate, with rough\nbut substantial accuracy, the proportion of the joint product\nrespectively produced by each.\n\nAt first sight it may seem that this problem is incapable of any\ndefinite solution; and some socialistic writers have done their best to\nobscure it. The efficiency of labour, they say, is in the modern world\nlargely due, no doubt, to the action of directive ability; but ability\ncould produce nothing unless it had labour to direct; whence it is\ninferred that the claim of labour on the product may in justice be\nalmost anything short of the absolute total. To this abstract argument\nwe will presently come back; but we will first examine another urged by\na celebrated thinker, which, though less extreme in its implications,\nwould, were it only sound, be even more fatal to our chances of arriving\nat the conclusion sought for. The thinker to whom I refer is Mill, who\nassigns to this argument a very prominent place in the opening chapter\nof his _Principles of Political Economy_.\n\nCertain economists have, so he says, debated \"whether nature gives more\nassistance to labour in one kind of industry than in another\"; and he\nendeavours to show that the question is in its very essence\nunanswerable. \"When two conditions,\" he proceeds, \"are equally necessary\nfor producing the effect at all, it is unmeaning to say that so much is\nproduced by one, and so much by the other. It is like attempting to\ndecide which of the factors five and six contributes most to the\nproduction of thirty.\" And if this argument is true of nature and\nlabour, it is equally true of labour and the ability by which labour is\ndirected. Thus a great ocean liner which, in Mill's language, would be\n\"the effect,\" could not be produced at all without the labour of several\nthousand labourers; and it is equally true that it could not be produced\nat all unless the masters of various sciences, designers, inventors, and\norganisers, directed the labour of the labourers in certain specific\nways. Both conditions, then, being \"necessary for producing the effect\nat all,\" the portions of it due to each would, according to Mill's\nargument, be indeterminable. Let us consider, therefore, if Mill's\nargument is sound. We shall find that it is vitiated by a fallacy which\nwill, as soon as we have perceived it, show us the way to the truth of\nwhich we are now in search. Let us begin with taking the argument as he\nhimself applies it.\n\nHe brings it forward with special reference to agriculture, and aims it\nat the contention of a certain school of economists that nature in\nagriculture did more than in other industries. To urge this, says Mill,\nis nonsense, for the simple reason that though nature in agriculture\ndoes something, it is impossible to determine whether the something is\nrelatively much or little. Let us, he says in effect, take the products\nof any farm, which we may for convenience' sake symbolise as so many\nloaves; and it is obviously absurd to inquire which produces most of\nthem--the soil or the farm labourers. The soil without the labourers\nwould produce no loaves at all. The labourers would produce no loaves if\nthey had not the soil to work upon.\n\nNow, if there were only one farm in the world, and one grade of labour,\nand if every acre of this farm, when the same labour was applied to it,\nwould always yield the same amount of produce--let us say one\nloaf--Mill's argument would be true. The actual state of the case is,\nhowever, very different. Acres vary very greatly in quality; and if we\ntake four acres of varying degrees of fertility, to all of which is\napplied the same amount of labour, then, while from the worst of the\nacres this labour will elicit one loaf, it will elicit from the others,\nlet us say, according to their degrees of fertility, two loaves, three\nloaves, and four loaves respectively. Here the labour being in each of\nthe four cases the same, and the additional loaves resulting in three\ncases only, it is obvious that the difference between the larger\nproducts and the less is not due to the labour, but to certain\nadditional qualities present, in the three superior acres and not\npresent in the worst one. In other words, although in producing\nloaves--or, as Mill describes it, \"the effect\"--the parts played by\nlabour and nature are indefinite and incommensurable so long as the\nland, the labour, and the effect remain all three the same, the parts\nbecome immediately measurable when the effect begins to vary, and one of\nthe causes, and only one of them, at the same time varies also.\n\nThis truth can be yet further elucidated by the very illustration which\nMill cities in disproof of it. It is absurd to ask, he says, whether the\nnumber five or six does most, when they are multiplied together, to\nproduce \"the effect\" thirty. This is true so long as \"the effect\" thirty\nis constant; but if on occasions the thirty is increased to forty, and\nif whenever this happens the six has increased to eight, we know that\nthe extra ten which our multiplication yields us is not due to the five,\nthe number which remains unchanged, but to an extra two now present in\nthe number that was once six. Or again let us take as \"the effect\" the\nspeed of a motor-car which is raced over a mile of road. Unless two\nconditions were present--the engine and some ground to run upon--the car\ncould not run at all; and if there were only one road and one car in\nthe world, it would be absurd to inquire how much of the speed was due\nto the merits of the engine, and how much to the character of the road's\nsurface. But if, the car remaining unchanged, the surface of the road\nwas improved, and a speed was thereupon developed of thirty miles an\nhour instead of twenty, we should, with regard to the increment, at once\nbe able to say that it was due to the surface of the road, and was not\ndue to the engine. Conversely, if the road were unchanged, but the car\nhad a new engine, and the speed under these conditions increased in the\nsame way, the increment would be evidently attributable to the engine\nand not the road.\n\nAnd the same observations apply to labour and directive ability,\nwhenever the operations of both are essential to a given product. If the\nability and the labour were always inevitably constant, and the product\nas to quality and amount were similarly constant also, we could not say\nthat so much or so little of the effect was due to one cause, and so\nmuch or so little to the other. If there were in the world only a\nthousand shipwrights, and these men, working always under the same\ndirector, always produced in a year one ship of an unchanging kind, we\ncould not say which of its parts or how much of its value were due to\nthe man directing, and which or how much were due to the men directed.\nBut if for one year this director were to retire and another was to take\nhis place, and, the same labourers being directed by this new master,\nthe result was the production not of one ship but of two; and if, when\nthe year was ended, and the old master came back again, the annual\nproduct once more was not the two ships but one, we could then say, as a\nmatter of common-sense with regard to the year during which the two\nvessels were built, that the second vessel, whatever might be the case\nwith the first, was due wholly to the ability of the master, and not to\nthe labour of the men. In other words, the ability of the director of\nlabour produces so much of the product, or of that product's value as\nexceeds what was produced by the labourers before their labour was\ndirected by him, and would cease to be produced any longer as soon as\nhis direction was withdrawn.\n\nThat in the case of any result which requires separable causes for its\nproduction, this method of allocating to these causes respectively so\nmuch of the result and so much of it only, is a method always adopted in\nall practical reasoning, may be seen by taking a result which is not\nbeneficial but criminal. Twenty Russian labourers, all loyal to the\nCzar, are, let us say, employed to dig out a cellar under a certain\nstreet, and to fill it with cases which ostensibly contain wine.\nSubsequently, as the Czar is passing, he is killed by a huge explosion.\nIt then becomes apparent that the so-called cellar was a mine, and the\nharmless-looking cases had really been filled with dynamite. Now, if all\nthose concerned in the consummation of this catastrophe were tried, it\nis perfectly evident that the part played by the labourers would be\nsharply discriminated from that played by the man employing them; and,\nalthough they contributed something which was necessary to the\nproduction of the result, it would certainly have been admitted by\nGeneral Trepoff himself that they had contributed nothing to its\nessential and criminal elements. It is equally evident that the\nincrement of wealth which results from the obedience of labourers to\ninjunctions which do not emanate from themselves, is produced by the man\nwho gives the injunctions, and not by the men who obey them.\n\nBut here we must return to the argument, already mentioned in passing,\nwhich may be restated thus: A thousand labourers, directed by their own\nintelligence only, produce a product whose amount we will call a\nthousand. The same labourers are directed by a man of ability, and the\nproduct rises from one thousand to two. But if the production of this\nsecond thousand is to be credited to the man of ability on the ground\nthat, were the ability absent, no second thousand would be produced, we\nmay reach by the same reasoning a conclusion precisely opposite, and\ncredit not only the first, but both the thousands to labour, on the\nground that, if the labour were absent, nothing would be produced at\nall. The argument is plausible; and in order to understand its fallacy\nwe must give our attention to a fact, not generally realised, which is\ninvolved in all practical reasoning about all causes whatsoever.\n\nIf we use the word \"cause\" in its strict speculative sense, the number\nof causes involved in the simplest effect is infinite. Let us take, for\nexample, the speed of a horse which wins a race. Why does the speed of\nthis horse exceed that of the others? We may in answer point to\nqualities of its individual organism. But these will carry us back to\nall its recorded ancestors--sires and dams for a large number of\ngenerations: and even so we shall have been taken but a small part of\nour way. The remotest of these ancestors--why were they horses at all?\nFor our answer we must travel through the stages of organic evolution,\ntill we reach the point at which animal and vegetable life were one. Had\nany of these antecedents been missing, the winning race-horse would not\nhave won the race. Nor is this all. We have to include in our causes\nair, gravitation, and the fact that the earth is solid. No horse could\nwin on turf which was based on vapour. But by all the thousands who\nwitness a great race this whole mass of ulterior, though necessary,\ncauses is ignored. The only causes which for them have any practical\ninterest are those comprised in the organism of the winning horse\nitself. Who would contend that this horse had not won its own victory,\non the ground that part of its own speed--a part which could not be\ncalculated--was contributed by the crust of the earth, or the general\nconstitution of the universe? Any one arguing thus would be howled down\nas a madman. Now, why is this? Why would the common-sense of mankind, in\na practical matter like a race, instinctively exercise this kind of\neclecticism, concentrating itself on certain causes and absolutely\nignoring others? Such behaviour is not arbitrary. It depends on a\nprinciple inherent in all practical reasoning whatsoever. Let us see\nwhat this principle is.\n\nWhen, with any practical purpose in view, we insist that anything is the\ncause of anything else, or produces anything else, we are always\nselecting, out of an incalculable number of causes, one cause or agency\nwhich, under the circumstances in view, may or may not be present; which\na careless person may neglect to introduce; which an ignorant person may\nbe persuaded to take away; or a recognition of which will influence\nhuman conduct somehow; while all other causes, which no one proposes to\ntake away, or which no one is able to take away, are assumed by all\nparties, but they are not considered by anybody. Why should they be\nconsidered? Not only are they so numerous that no intellect could deal\nwith them, but they have, since with regard to them there is no\ndifference of opinion, no place in any practical discussion at all. If a\nton of stone is to be placed on a piece of framework, men may reasonably\ndiscuss whether the framework is strong enough to bear it, or whether\nmaterial is not being wasted in making it stronger than necessary. What\nwill happen without an additional girder? Or what will happen if we take\ntwo girders away? Will the stone fall or not? These questions belong to\nthe domain of practical reasoning because to take a girder away, or else\nintroduce fresh ones, lies within the power of the disputants. But no\npractical men would think of complicating the discussion by calculating\nwhat would happen if they suspended the action of gravitation, in which\ncase the stone would need no support whatever; for to suspend the action\nof gravitation is within the power of nobody. If two men are debating in\nthe middle of the night at midsummer whether there is enough oil in the\nlamp to keep it alight till sunrise, they are debating a question of a\nstrictly practical kind: for it rests with them to put in more oil or\nnot. What will happen if they do not? That is the point at issue. But\nthey neither of them would debate what would happen if the movement of\nthe earth were retarded, and the midsummer morning were delayed till the\nhour at which it dawns in winter. They do not discuss this contingency,\nfor they rightly assume it to be impossible, and consequently the\ndiscussion of it would have no practical meaning.\n\nAnd now let us go back to the question of labour and ability; and we\nshall see, in the case of products to the production of which both are\nessential, that, while ability is the practical cause of all such\namounts or values as exceed what would have been produced by labour if\nthere were no ability to direct it, it cannot be claimed in any similar\nsense that all amounts and values are conversely produced by labour,\nwhich exceed what would have been produced by the action of directive\nability, if no labour existed for such ability to direct.\n\nThe reason why labour, in this respect, differs from ability is as\nfollows: Whether directive ability shall or shall not exert itself\ndepends upon human volitions which, according to circumstances, are\nalterable, just as it depends upon alterable human volitions whether a\nframework of steel be constructed in this way or in that; or whether a\nlamp be replenished with oil or no. But whether ordinary manual labour\nshall or shall not exert itself, is not similarly dependent on human\nvolition at all. Let a nation be organised, no matter on what\nprinciples, the majority of the citizens will have to labour in any\ncase. The supposition of their labouring is bound up with the\nsupposition of their existence. To suppose that the labourers as a whole\ncould permanently cease to labour, is like supposing that they could\nexist and yet permanently cease to breathe. They can cease to labour for\nmoments, just as for moments a man can hold his breath, as they do on\nthe occasion of a strike; but they can do so for moments only. Except in\na region where climatic conditions are exceptional, what makes men\nlabour is not an employing class, but nature. Directive ability does not\n_make_ them labour; it finds them labouring. It finds them like wheels\nwhich are driven by an eternal stream, and which must turn and turn for\never, until they fall to pieces. To inquire, then, what would happen if\nlabour ceased to exert itself is like inquiring what would happen if the\nearth were to retard its diurnal motion, or if some natural force--for\nexample, that of gravitation--were to strike work for the sake of\nintimidating the cause of all things. Such suppositions are for\npractical purposes meaningless. But with the directive ability of the\nfew, as opposed to the directed labour of the many, the case is\ndramatically different. For while there never can be any question of the\ndirective faculties of the few being left alone in a world where there\nis no labour--for in the case of the majority, nature, the eternal\ntaskmaster, will always make labour compulsory, so long as stomachs want\nfood and naked backs want clothing--there constantly has been, and there\nmay be again, a question of whether this mass of ordinary human labour\nshall find any exceptional ability so developed and so organised as to\ndirect it. In the earlier states of society no such ability was\noperative. In savage communities it is not operative now; and there is\nconstantly a question, among modern civilised nations, whenever the\nsecurity of social institutions is threatened, of the action of this\nfaculty being temporarily suspended altogether, either because those\npersons possessing it are deprived of the motives without which they\nwill not exert it, or else because the labourers individually, on one\nground or another, are impatient of submitting themselves to the\ndirection of any intelligences but their own.\n\nIn other words, when we are seeking to measure the products due\nrespectively to directive ability and to labour, by computing what would\nhappen if either of these agencies were withdrawn, the withdrawal of one\nof them--that is to say, of ability--can alone be taken as possible by\nany practical reasoner. We have before us practically two alternatives\nonly. One is a condition of things under which the exceptional ability\nof the few directs and co-ordinates the labour of the average many. The\nother is a condition of things under which the labour of the average\nmany has to exert itself with the same severe continuity, but is guided,\nco-ordinated, and stimulated by none of those special faculties which\nraise a few men above the general level of efficiency. When these\nspecial faculties are applied to the direction of average labour, the\noutput of wealth increases. When their application is interfered with or\nceases, the output of wealth declines; and in the only practical sense\nof the words \"cause\" or \"producer,\" these faculties of direction, or the\nexceptional persons who exercise them, are the true causes or producers\nof the whole of that portion of wealth which comes into being with their\nactivity, and disappears or dwindles with their inaction.\n\nThe practical validity of this method of computation has been formally\nrecognised, though not completely understood, by some of the later\nsocialists themselves. Mr. Webb, for example, and his associates, have\nadmitted that, of the wealth of the modern world a considerable part\nconsists of \"the rent of business ability.\"[19] This way of expressing\nthe matter is true so far as it goes. It expresses, however, one-half of\nthe truth only. Mr. Webb and his friends mean that, if we take the world\nas it is, the products due to ability in any given industry consist of\nthe quantity by which the products of one firm, because it is managed by\na man of superior talent, exceed the products of another firm which\ndiffers from the first only in the fact that it is managed by another\nman whose talent is not so great. They assume as their starting-point,\nin every case, the presence of directive ability sufficient to organise\nthe labourers in such a way that the products of the entire group shall\nprovide the labourers with wages which are up to a certain standard, and\na minimum of profit or of surplus values besides. This lowest grade of\nability is one of the postulates of their argument, just as in\ncalculating agricultural rent the first postulate of our argument is a\nlowest grade of land.\n\nNow, in connection with many questions of a more or less limited kind,\nthis assimilation of the products of superior ability to rent, and of\nability of a lower grade to land which is practically rentless, will\nserve our purpose well enough. Between the two cases, however, there is\na vast and underlying difference; and when we consider our present\nproblem under its widest and most vital aspect, it is the difference,\nnot the likeness, between them, which constitutes our main concern. The\nnature of this difference has been pointed out already. When we are\ndiscussing rent and agriculture, land is a necessary assumption, for\nunless there were land, there could be no agriculture at all; but there\ncan be, has been, and still is in the world, abundance of labour without\ndirective ability; and while it would be meaningless to ask what would\nhappen to rent if all land disappeared, the question of what would\nhappen to labour if all ability were in abeyance is precisely the\nquestion raised by all schemes of economic revolution, and one which has\nbeen constantly illustrated by the facts of economic history.\n\nOf such facts we may take the following, picturesque example: In the\neighteenth century the Jesuit Fathers in Uruguay succeeded in teaching\nthe natives a variety of Western arts, among others that of\nwatch-making, and so long as the Jesuits were on the spot to direct them\nthe natives exhibited much manual skill. But when, owing to political\ncauses, the Jesuits were driven from the country, the natives sank back\ninto their previous industrial helplessness. The temporary efficiency of\ntheir labour had been due to the ability that directed it; and as soon\nas that ability was withdrawn, the labour, left to itself, shrank again\nto its old relative inefficiency. Now, here we have a case precisely\nanalogous to that which we have to deal with when considering at the\npresent day how much of the products of any civilised nation is produced\nby the labour of the average units of the population, and how much by\nthe ability of the exceptional men directing them. It is not a question\nof how much this or that group of labourers, which is directed by a man\nof the highest grade of ability, produces in excess of the products of\nsome similar group which is directed by another man whose ability is\nsomewhat inferior; it is a question of how much the same nation would\nproduce, if every director of other men's labour were withdrawn, and the\npresent labouring units left to their own devices.\n\nThese two questions, though not mutually exclusive, differ as much as\nthe question of why one of two balloons rises above the earth to a\nheight of three miles and a furlong, while a second balloon reaches the\nheight of three miles only, differs from the question of why either of\nthem rises in the air at all. Mr. Webb and his friends, with their\ntheory of the rent of ability, confine themselves to the first of\nthese--namely, the question of why one balloon rises a furlong higher\nthan the other. The real question which we have to deal with here is why\nboth balloons lift their aeronauts at least three miles into the clouds,\nwhile other men who have no balloon to lift them can get no higher than\nthe top of the church steeple. Or to come back to literal fact, our\nproblem must be expressed thus: Let us take the present population of\nGreat Britain or America, and, having noted the wealth at present\nannually produced by it, ask ourselves what would happen if some duly\nqualified angel were to pick out and kill, or otherwise make away with,\nevery man, who, in virtue of his assimilated scientific knowledge, his\ninventive gifts, his constructive and practical imagination, his energy,\nhis initiative, and his natural powers of leadership, was better able to\ndirect others than the other nine were to direct themselves?\n\nWe cannot make this experiment in precisely the way described; but\nhistory will provide us with equivalents which are sufficiently accurate\nfor our purpose. There are, for example, in the case of Great Britain,\ndata which have enabled statisticians with a considerable degree of\nunanimity to estimate the values produced per head of the industrial\npopulation at various periods from the reign of Charles II. till to-day,\nand to reduce these values to comparable terms of money. Now, we need\nnot insist too much on the accuracy of the figures in question; but one\nbroad fact is unmistakably shown by them--that the product per head\ntowards the close of the nineteenth century was, to say the least of it,\nfrom four to five times as great as it was towards the close of the\nsixteenth. To what, then, was this increase in industrial productivity\ndue? It was not due to any change in the spontaneous workings of nature.\nIt can only have been due to some change in the character of human\neffort--either in that of the effort of each separate manual labourer,\nor else in that of the men by whom the labour of others is directed. The\naverage labourer, however, at the close of the nineteenth century did\nnot differ, as an isolated labouring unit, from the average labourer as\nhe was at the time of the fire of London. The increase in industrial\nproductivity must therefore be necessarily due to a change in the\nability of those by whom the labourers are organised and directed. And\nhere _a priori_ reasoning is confirmed by actual facts, for the change\nwhich has taken place in the class which directs the labour of others\nhas been, during the period in question, of the most notorious and\nastonishing kind. That class had been progressively absorbing into\nitself, and concentrating on the conduct of industry, ambitions,\nintelligences, and strong practical wills, which formerly found their\noutlets in very different channels--ecclesiastical, political, and more\nespecially military. Man for man, then, industry became more productive,\nbecause to an increasing degree the ablest men of the nation\nconcentrated their exceptional powers on directing the business of\nproduction; and any one who wished to push things to an extreme\nconclusion might contend that the entire amount--some four or five\nhundred per cent.--by which the product per head in the year 1880\nexceeded the product per head some two hundred years before, was due to\ndirective ability, and directive ability only; and that the labourers,\nin their capacity of labourers, had no claim whatsoever to it. We will,\nhowever, put the case in a much more moderate form. We will, for\nargument's sake, concede to self-directed labour all that increase in\nthe values produced per head, which took place between the time of\nCharles II. and the general establishment in Great Britain of the modern\nindustrial system, with its huge mills and factories, and its\nconcomitant differentiation of the directing class from the directed--an\nevent which had been securely accomplished at the beginning of the\nnineteenth century. In making this concession, we shall, indeed, be\ndefying fact, and ignoring the improvements, alike in manufacture and\nagriculture, which had taken place during the hundred years preceding,\nespecially during the last fifty of them, and which were solely due to\na minority of exceptionally able men.[20] We shall thus be conceding to\nthe labourer far more than his due. Certainly no one can contend that we\nconcede too little.\n\nLet us take, then, the beginning of the nineteenth century as our\nstanding-point; and, assuming that labour was the sole producer then,\ncompare its productivity per head with the productivity of industrial\neffort--of labour and ability combined--some eight or nine decades\nlater. The labourers of Great Britain as a body, to the exclusion of all\nother classes, actually divided among themselves, about the year 1880,\nmore wealth per head--something like forty-five per cent.--than would\nhave been theirs if they had lived in the days of their own\ngrandfathers, and been able to appropriate as wages the income of the\nentire country.\n\nLet us, then, repeat the question which we asked just now. Where has\nthis addition to the income of labour come from? That part of it is\nattributable to ability--the ability of the Watts, the Stephensons, the\nArkwrights, the Bessemers, the Edisons, and so forth--nobody in his\nsenses will deny. Can it be said that any of it is attributable to\nlabour? The period now under consideration is so brief that this\nquestion is not hard to answer. It can easily be shown that man, as a\nlabourer skilled or unskilled, has acquired individually no new\nefficiencies since--to say the least of it--the days of the Greeks and\nRomans. An ancient gem-engraver would to-day be eminent among modern\ncraftsmen. The implements of the Roman surgeons, the proportional\ncompasses used by the Roman architects, the force-pumps and taps used in\nthe Roman houses--all things that could be produced by a man directing\nhis own muscles--were produced in the Rome of Nero as perfectly as they\ncould be produced to-day. To this fact our museums bear ample and minute\nwitness; while the Colosseum and the Parthenon are quite enough to show\nthat the masons of the ancient world were at least the equals of our\nown. If no advance, then, in the quality of manual labour as such has\ntaken place in the course of two thousand years, it is idle to contend\nthat its powers have increased in the course of eighty. But a still more\nremarkable proof that they actually have not done so, and that no such\nincrease has contributed to the increase of modern wealth, is supplied\nby events belonging to these eighty years themselves. I refer to the\npolicy pursued by the trade-unions of reducing the practical efficiency\nof all their members alike to the level which can be reached by those of\nthem who are least active and dexterous. Bricklayers, for example, are\nforbidden by the English unions to lay, in a given time, more than a\ncertain number of bricks, though by many of them this number could be\ndoubled, and by some trebled, with ease. Now, although, from the point\nof view of those bodies who adopt it, such a policy has many advantages,\nand is perhaps a tactical necessity, this levelling down of labour to\nthe minimum of individual efficiency is denounced by many critics as a\nprelude to industrial suicide, and the alarm which these persons feel is\ndoubtless intelligible enough. It is, however, largely superfluous. The\nlevelling process in question must of course involve a certain amount of\nwaste; but its effect on production as a whole is under most\ncircumstances inappreciable. Building as a whole is not checked by the\nfact that the best bricklayers may do no more than the worst. All kinds\nof commodities are multiplied, improved, and cheapened, while thousands\nof the operatives whose labour is involved in their production are\nallowed to attend to but one machine, when they might easily attend to\nthree. In a word, while the unions have been doing their effective best\nto keep labour, as a productive agent, stationary, or even to diminish\nits efficiency, the product of industry as a whole exhibits an unchecked\nincrease. And what is the explanation of this? Little as the\ntrade-unions realise the fact themselves, their own policy is an\nobject-lesson which supplies us with the simple answer. The answer is\nthat the increase of modern wealth--certainly its increase during the\npast eighty years--has not been due to any change in the efficiency of\nlabour at all; that labour is merely a unit which directive ability\nmultiplies; that if in the year 1800 labour produced everything, and\nits total products then be expressed by the number five, the products of\nthe industrial population would be five per head still, if ability, as a\nmultiplying number, successively expressible by two and three and four,\nhad not increased the quotient to ten, fifteen, and twenty; ability thus\nbeing the producer, not indeed of the five with which we start, but of\nall the increasing differences between this and the larger numbers.\n\nTo return then to definite facts, since in the year 1800 an equal\ndivision of all the wealth of Great Britain would have yielded to each\nfamily an income of eighty pounds, and since eighty years later an equal\ndivision of the total which was actually appropriated as wages by\nwage-paid labour alone, would have yielded to each labourer's family\nsome twenty-five pounds in addition, the labouring class as a whole in\nGreat Britain to-day, instead of receiving less than its labour\nproduces, receives on the lowest computation from thirty to thirty-three\nper cent. more. Or, to put the matter otherwise, more than a fourth of\nits present income is drawn from a fund which would cease to have any\nexistence if it were not for the continued activity of a specially\ngifted class, by whose brains the data of science are being constantly\nremastered and re-assimilated, and by whose energy they are applied to\nthe minds and muscles of the many from the earliest hour of each working\nday to the latest. And what is true labour, its products, and receipts\nin Great Britain, is broadly true of them in America and all other\ncountries also, where modern capitalism has arrived at the same stage of\ndevelopment.\n\nWe are, let me say once more, not here contemplating individual cases.\nOf the total wage-fund divided among the labourers in any given country,\ntoo much may be given to some men, and too little to others; but of\nevery million pounds which a million of such men receive, some two\nhundred and fifty thousand are distributed well or ill, which have not\nbeen produced by the efforts of these men themselves, but are due to the\nefforts of a class which is definitely outside their own.[21] If, then,\nit is contended that the just reward of labour is that total of wealth\nwhich labour itself produces, the idea that labour, in respect of its\npecuniary remuneration, is, under present conditions, the victim of any\ngeneral wrong, is so far from having any justification in fact that it\nonly touches fact at all by representing a direct inversion of it.\nLabour, as a whole, does not, under existing conditions, get less than\nit produces.[22] It gets a very great deal more. If, therefore, the\nclaims of labour are based on, and limited to, the amount of wealth\nwhich is produced by labour itself--that is to say, the total which it\nwould now produce were the faculties of the directing and organising\nminority paralysed--what labour, thus appropriating the entire product,\nwould receive, would be far less, not more, than what it actually\nreceives to-day. Instead of defrauding it of any part of its due, the\nexisting system is treating it with an extreme and even wanton\ngenerosity.\n\nIs it, then, here contended, many readers will ask, that if matters are\ndetermined by ideal justice, or anything like practical wisdom, the\nremuneration of labour in general ought henceforth to be lessened, or at\nall events precluded from any possibility of increase? Is it contended\nthat the employing and directing class should attempt or even desire to\ntake back from those directed by it every increment of wealth possessed\nby them which is not produced by themselves? If any one thinks that such\nis the conclusion which is here suggested, let him suspend his opinion\nuntil, as we shall do in another chapter, we return to the subject and\ndeal with it in a more comprehensive way. Our conclusion, as for the\nmoment we must now be content to leave it, is not that the labourers\nhave not a claim, practically valid, to the only portion of their income\nwhich has any tendency to grow, but merely that they should understand\nthe source from which this portion is drawn--a source which consists of\nthe efforts of other men, not of their own.\n\nAnd now, before we return to this particular question, we will go on to\ndeal with another which to a certain extent overlaps it, but is narrower\nin its compass, and seems, for that very reason, to many minds of\ngreater practical moment. I mean the question of interest, or the income\nwhich comes to its recipients without any necessary effort on their own\npart to correspond to it.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[18] I met an interesting embodiment of this mood of mind in America, in\nthe person of a slim young man, well-dressed, well-educated, refined in\nhis speech and manners, who worked as a clerk or accountant in some\nlarge financial house. To my great astonishment he introduced himself to\nme as a socialist. \"I don't believe like Marx,\" he said, \"that labour\nproduces everything, but I maintain that the task-work of the employed\nand directed labourer, of whatever grade--whether he uses a pen or a\nchisel--is always worth more than the wages which the employers pay him\nfor performing it. I feel this myself with regard to my own firm. Month\nby month I am worth to it more than the sums it gives me. This,\" he went\non, with an odd gleam in his eyes, \"is what I may not endure to think\nof--that others should be always appropriating values which I have\nproduced myself; and nine out of ten of the men who become socialists,\ndo so because they feel as I do about this particular point.\"\n\n[19] General Walker also seeks to assimilate the product of ability to\nrent; and my criticism of Mr. Webb in this respect applies to him also.\nGeneral Walker's book was mentioned frequently in connection with my\nlate addresses in America; and it was said by one or two critics that I\nhad borrowed from, and ought to have acknowledged my debt to, him. As a\nmatter of fact, I never saw his book till after my return to England,\nwhen I read it with interest and admiration. His doctrines with regard\nto the _entrepreneur_ is, so far as it goes, fundamentally identical\nwith the main argument of this volume. My criticism of him would be that\nhe does not give to this particular part of his doctrine the foremost\nplace which logically belongs to it; and that though attributing to the\n_entrepreneur_ some special productive faculty distinct from labour, he\nstarts his work with re-enumerating the old doctrine that labour,\ncapital, and law are the only factors in production.\n\n[20] For example, the silk factory at Derby, erected by Lombe, in the\nreign of George II., the machinery of which comprised 26,000 wheels.\n\n[21] These figures represent less than the truth. They are merely given\nin order to indicate the general character of the situation to-day, as\ncompared with that of an earlier, but still comparatively recent period.\nTo go into details minutely would involve extensive and here needless\ndiscussion.\n\n[22] A letter was sent me by a friend in America, from a writer who,\ncommenting on my late addresses in that country, said that in the main\nhe entirely agreed with my arguments, as against socialism; but that he\ncould not divest himself of the belief that labour as a whole got less\nthan it produced, and was thus as a whole suffering a chronic wrong. He\nsuggested, however, a method, fundamentally analogous to that set forth\nin the text, of computing what labour, as such, does produce in reality.\nHe gave his own opinion as to actual facts, as an impression merely; but\nhow misleading impressions may be can be seen from his statements \"that\nall _very great_ fortunes, at all events, must be derived from the\nunderpayment of labour.\" Had he only considered the case in detail, he\nwould have seen that labour received the highest wages from some of the\nrichest employers. According to his theory the wages of labour, in such\ncases, would touch the minimum.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nINTEREST AND ABSTRACT JUSTICE\n\nThe essential feature of interest, as distinct from the income due to\nactive ability, is that while the latter ceases as soon as the able man\nceases to exert himself, the former continues to replenish the\nrecipient's pockets, though for his part he does nothing, or need do\nnothing, in return for it. Since, then, the possession of this\nparticular form of income is admittedly unconnected with any concurrent\nexertion on the part of those possessing it (such is the argument of the\nobjectors) the whole portion of the national wealth which, in the form\nof interest, is at present appropriated by the presumably or the\npossibly idle, might obviously be appropriated by the state, and applied\nto public purposes, without lessening in any way even the highest of\nthose rewards which are due to, and are needed to stimulate any active\nability whatsoever, and hence without lessening the efficiency of the\nwealth-producing process as a whole. If we adopt the programme which\nthis argument suggests, it will be possible, so its advocates say, to\nsatisfy the demands of labour by a shorter and more direct method than\nthat of committing ourselves to an estimate of what labour actually\nproduces, and endeavouring to secure that the total which is paid to\nlabour shall accord with it.\n\nNow, this programme raises two separate questions. One question is\nwhether the proposed confiscation of interest is in reality, as its\nadvocates maintain it to be, practicable in the sense that the\ndisturbances which it would necessarily cause would not interfere with\nthe production of the fund which it is desired to distribute, and so\nperhaps leave all classes poorer and not richer than they are. The other\nquestion is whether such a confiscation would be just. To some people\nthis second question will possibly seem superfluous. If it can be shown,\nthey will say, that a policy, the avowed object of which is the\nenrichment of the many at the expense of the relatively few, could be\nreally carried out successfully, and if the many had the power of\ninsisting on it, an inquiry into its abstract justice is merely a waste\nof time; for whenever the wolf is face to face with the lamb, it will\neat up the lamb first and justify its conduct afterwards. And in this\nargument there is a certain amount of truth; but those who take it for\nthe whole truth allow their own cynicism to overreach them. The fact\nremains that even the wolves of the human world are obliged to assume,\nas a kind of necessary armour, and often as their principal weapon, a\nsemblance of justice, however they may despise the reality. The brigand\nchief justifies his war on society by declaring that society has\nunjustly made war on him. The wildest demagogues, in their appeals to\npopular passion, as the history of the French Revolution and of all\nrevolutions shows us, have always been obliged to exhibit the demands of\nmere self-interest as based on some general theory of what is morally\njust or right; and however much the theory may accommodate itself to the\nhope of private advantage, there are few demands made for any great\nsocial change which do not derive a large part of their force from\npersons with whom a belief in the justice of the demands stands first,\nwhile--so far at least as their own consciousness is concerned--the\nprospect of personal advantage stands second or nowhere. This is\ncertainly so in the case which we are now considering. We will,\ntherefore, begin with the question of abstract justice.\n\nLet us begin, then, with reminding ourselves that when interest is\nattacked as such, on the ground that its recipients have themselves done\nnothing to produce it, whereas other incomes, no matter how large, are\npresumably the equivalents of some personal effort which corresponds to\nthem, it is assumed that every man has, in natural justice, a right to\nsuch wealth as he actually himself produces; and what he produces, as we\nsaw in the last chapter, is that amount of wealth which would not have\nbeen produced at all had his efforts not been made, or been other or\nless intense than they have been.\n\nThus far, then, for the purposes of the present discussion, all parties\nare agreed; but the moment the assailants of interest take the next step\nin their argument, we shall find that their errors begin--errors\nresulting, as we shall see, from an imperfect analysis of facts. For\nthem the two types of correspondence between productive effort and\nproduct are, firstly, the manual labourer, who performs some daily task\nsuch as riveting plates or bricklaying, and receives an equivalent in\nwages at the end of each day or week; and, secondly, the manager of some\ngreat industrial enterprise, who spends each day so many hours in his\noffice, issuing minute directions with regard to the conduct of his\nsubordinates, and sending his receipts to the bank as they come in from\nhis customers. But these types, though accurate so far as they go, do\nbut cover a part of the actual field of fact. Practically, though of\ncourse not absolutely, they ignore the element of time. They represent\neffort and product as being always so nearly simultaneous that, although\nthe former must literally precede the latter, yet, if we estimate life\nin terms of years, or even months, or weeks, a man has ceased to produce\nas soon as he has ceased to work.\n\nNow, of certain forms of effort this may be true enough. A bricklayer,\nfor example, as soon as he ceases to lay bricks, ceases to produce\nanything. His wall-building closes its effects with the walls which he\nhimself has built. It does nothing to facilitate the building of other\nwalls in the future. Similarly such ability as consists in a gift for\npersonal management often ends its effects, and leaves no trace behind\nit, as soon as the manager possessing these gifts retires.\n\nBut with many forms of ability the case is precisely opposite. The\nproducts of their exercise do not even begin to appear till after--often\ntill long after--the exercise of the ability itself has altogether come\nto an end. Let us, for example, take the case of a play; and since\nsocialists are still included among the objectors whom we have in view,\nlet us take one of the popular plays written by Mr. Bernard Shaw. Such a\nplay, as Mr. Shaw has publicly boasted--for otherwise I should not\nmention, and should know nothing of his private affairs--brings to its\nauthor wealth in the form of amazing royalties; but until it is acted it\nbrings him no royalties at all, and the actors begin with it only when\nhis own efforts are ended. Moreover, not only do these royalties only\nbegin then, but having once begun, they have no tendency to exhaust\nthemselves. On the contrary the chances are that they will go on\nincreasing till the time arrives, if it ever does, when Mr. Shaw is no\nlonger appreciated. Mr. Shaw, in fact, if he had written one of his most\nsuccessful plays at twenty, might, so far as that play is concerned, be\nidle for ever afterwards, even if he lived to the age of Methuselah, and\nstill be enjoying in royalties the product of his own exertions, though\nhe had not exerted himself productively for some seven or eight hundred\nyears.\n\nThere is no question here of whether, under these conditions, a person\nlike Mr. Shaw might not feel himself constrained on some ground or other\nto surrender his copyright at some period prior to his own demise. The\none point here insisted on is that he could not renounce it on the\nground that the wealth protected by it was no longer produced by\nhimself. If he is entitled to the royalties resulting from the\nperformance of his play at any time, on the ground that every man has a\nright to the products of his own exertions, his right to the royalties\nresulting from its ten-thousandth performance is, on this ground, as\ngood as his right to the royalties resulting from the first. The\nroyalties on a play, in short, show how certain forms of effort, though\nnot all, continue to yield a product for an indefinite period, though\nthe original effort itself may be never again repeated; and herein these\nroyalties are typical of modern interest generally. They do not,\nhowever, constitute in themselves more than a small part of it. We will\ntherefore turn to interest of other kinds, the details of whose genesis\nare indeed widely different, but which consist similarly of a constant\nrepetition of values, without any corresponding repetition of the effort\nin which the series originated.\n\nThose which we will consider first are the products of organic nature,\nwhich have been dwelt upon by a well-known writer as showing us the\nultimate source of industrial interest generally, and also at the same\ntime its natural and essential justice. It may be a surprise to some to\nlearn who this writer is. He is Henry George, who is best known to the\npublic as the advocate of a measure of confiscation so crude and so\narbitrary, that even socialists have condemned it as impracticable\nwithout serious modifications. Henry George, however, although he outdid\nmost socialists in his attack on private wealth of one particular\nkind--that is to say, the rent of land--was equally vehement in his\ndefence of the interest of industrial capital. Socialists say--and the\naphorism is constantly repeated--\"A man can get an income only by\nworking or stealing; there is no third way.\" In answer to this, it was\npointed out by George that one kind of wealth, at all events--and we may\nadd that here we have wealth in its oldest form--consists of possessions\nyielding a natural increase, which has been neither made by the\npossessors, nor yet stolen by them from anybody else. That is to say, it\nconsists of flocks and herds. A shepherd or herdsman starts with a\nsingle pair of animals, from which parents there arises a large progeny.\nThis living increment has not been produced by the man, but it is still\nmore obvious that it has not been produced by his neighbours, and it\ntherefore belongs in justice to the man who owns the parents. George\npointed out also that whole classes of possessions besides are, for by\nfar the larger part of their value, equally independent either of\ncorresponding work or of theft. Among such possessions are wines, whose\nquality improves with time, and which, if sold to-day, may be worth\ntenpence a bottle, but which four years hence may be worth perhaps\nhalf-a-crown. In all such cases--this was George's contention--we have\nsome possession originally small to start with, which year by year is\nincreased in amount or at least in value, not by the efforts of the\npossessor, but by the secret operations of nature. Here, he argued, we\nhave capital in its typical form; and interest is the gift of nature to\nthe man by whom the capital is owned.\n\nGeorge, however, is constrained to supplement this proposition by\nanother. Though he assumes that of the products which are, in the modern\nworld, actually paid as interest by the borrower of capital to the\nowners of it, the larger part consists of gifts of unaided nature, he\nadmits that they are not the whole. He admits that a part of it is paid\nfor the use of machinery. Now, such interest, he says, has a definitely\ndifferent origin, and cannot intrinsically be justified in the same way;\nand if all wealth consisted of such commodities as are due to the\nefforts of man, and to the man-made machinery which assists him, all\ninterest would be really, as it is said to be by some, indefensible.\nBut, he continues, since interest on capital such as machinery is not\nthe whole of the interest paid in the modern world, but is only a minor\npart of it, and since in the modern world all forms of capital are\ninterchangeable, the laws which govern us in our dealings with the\nlesser quantity must necessarily be assimilated to those which govern us\nin our dealings with the greater. If a ram and a sheep are capital which\nyields just interest, because their wool and their progeny are\nincrements due to nature, and if a ram and a sheep are exchangeable for\nsome kind of machine, the possession of the one must be placed on a par\nwith the possession of the other. The machine must be treated, though it\nis not so in strictness, as if it were prolific in the same sense as the\nbeasts are; and a part of what it is used to produce must be paid by the\nuser to the owner of it.\n\nNow, both these arguments--that which deals with the fact of natural\nincrease, and that which deals with the assimilation of all such\npossessions as are interchangeable--are in principle sound. The first,\nindeed, touches the very root of the whole matter; but the first is\nexaggerated in his statement of it, and unduly limited in his\napplication, and the second is wholly unnecessary for proving what he\ndesires to prove. The first is exaggerated in his statement of it\nbecause, as a matter of fact, the kind of capital whose interest is\ndescribed by him as the gift of nature is not the major, it is only a\nminor part of the capital yielding interest under the conditions which\nobtain to-day. A part far larger is capital in the form of machinery;\nand if the distinction which George draws between the two is a true one,\nthe case of the flocks and herds should be assimilated to that of the\nmachines, not the case of the machines to that of the flocks and herds.\nInterest should be denied to both kinds of capital because machines are\nnot naturally prolific, instead of being conceded to both because flocks\nand herds are so. We shall find, however, that the distinction which\nGeorge seeks to establish is illusory, that both kinds of capital yield\ninterest in the same way, and that his justification of it in the one\ncase is equally applicable to it in the other.\n\nHis attempt to distinguish between the two takes the form of a criticism\nof Bastiat, according to whom the typical source of interest is the\nadded productivity which a given amount of human effort acquires by the\nuse of certain lendable implements. As a type of such implements or\nmachines, Bastiat takes a plane. The maker of a plane lends this plane\nto another man, who is thus enabled to finish off in a week four more\nplanks than he could have done had he used an adze. If, at the end of\nthe week, the borrower does nothing more than return the plane in good\nrepair to the lender, the borrower gains by the transaction; but the\nmaker and lender not only gains nothing, he loses. For a week he loses\nhis implement which he otherwise might have used himself, and the extra\nplanks which, by the use of it, he could have produced just as easily\nas his fellow. Such an arrangement would be obviously and absurdly\nunjust. Justice demands--and practice here follows justice--that he get\nat the end of the week, not only his own plane back again, but two of\nthe extra planks due to its use besides. A plane, in short--such is\nBastiat's meaning, though he does not put it in this precise way--is a\npossession which is fruitful no less than a sheep and a ram are, or a\nwine which adds to its value by the mere process of being kept, and it,\ntherefore, yields interest for a virtually similar reason. George,\nhowever, seeks to dispose of Bastiat's argument thus: If the maker of\nthe plane lends it, he says, instead of himself using it, and the\nborrower borrows a plane, instead of himself making one, such an\narrangement is simply due to the fact that both parties for the moment\nhappen to find it convenient. For, George observes, it is no part of\nBastiat's contention that the plane is due to the exertion of any\nfaculties possessed by the maker only. Either man could make it, just as\neither man could use it. Why, then, should A pay a tribute to B for the\nuse of something which, to-morrow, if not to-day, he could make for\nhimself without paying anything to anybody?\n\nNow, if Bastiat's plane is to be taken as signifying a plane only, the\ncriticism of George is just. But what George forgets is that, if the\nplane means a plane only--an implement which any man could make just as\nwell as the lender--interest on planes, besides being morally\nindefensible, would as a matter of fact never be paid at all. Bastiat's\nplane, however, stands for a kind of capital, the borrowing of which and\nthe paying of interest on which, form one of the most constant features\nof the modern industrial world; and he evidently assumes, even if he\ndoes not say so, that for all this borrowing and paying there is some\nconstant and sufficient reason. Now, the only reason can be--and\nGeorge's own criticism implies this--that in order to produce the\nmachine-capital borrowed certain faculties are needed which are not\npossessed by the borrowers; and though this may not be true of a simple\nhand-plane itself, it is emphatically true of the elaborate modern\nmachinery of which Bastiat merely uses his hand-plane as a symbol. In\norder to produce such implements of production as these, the exertion of\nfaculties is required which are altogether exceptional, such as high\nscientific knowledge, invention, and many others. Let invention--the\nmost obvious of these--here do duty for all, and let us consider, for\nexample, the mechanism of a modern cotton mill, or of a boot factory, or\na Hoe printing press, or a plant for electric lighting. All these would\nbe impossible if it had not been for inventive faculties as rare in\ntheir way as those of a playwright like Mr. Shaw.\n\nNo one will deny that when a play like \"Man and Superman\" first acquires\na vogue which renders its performance profitable, the royalties paid to\nthe author are values which he has himself created, not indeed by his\nfaculties used directly, but by his faculties embodied in a work which\nhe has accomplished once for all in the past, and which has\nthenceforward become a secondary and indefinitely enduring self; and if\nthis is true of the royalties resulting from its first profitable\nperformance, it would be equally true of those resulting from the last,\neven though this should take place on the eve of the Day of Judgment.\nWith productive machinery the case is just the same. If Mr. Shaw,\ninstead of writing \"Man and Superman,\" had been the sole inventor of the\nsteam-engine, and the only man capable of inventing it, every one will\nadmit that he would, by this one inventive effort, have personally\nco-operated for a time with all users of steam-power, and been\npart-producer of the increment in which its use resulted. And if this\nwould have been true of his invention when it was only two years old, it\nwould be equally true now. He would still be co-operating with the users\nof every steam-engine in the world to-day, and adding to their products\nsomething which they could not have produced alone.\n\nHere, then, we see that in one respect at all events the two kinds of\ncapital, which George attempts to contrast, yield interest for a\nprecisely similar reason. Both consist of a productive power or agency\nwhich is external to the borrower himself; and it makes no difference to\nhim whether the auxiliary power borrowed inheres in living tissue, or in\na mechanism of brass or iron.\n\nBut the resemblance between these two forms of capital, and the identity\nof the reasons why both of them bear interest, do not end here. I quoted\nin a former chapter an observation of Mr. Sidney Webb's, which he\nhimself applies in a very foolish way, but which is obviously true in\nitself, and in the present connection is pertinent. Some men he admits\nare incomparably more productive than others, because they happen to be\nborn with a special kind of ability. But what is this ability itself? It\nis simply the result, he says, of a process which lies behind\nthem--namely, the natural process of animal and human evolution; and its\nspecial products are like those of exceptionally fertile land. That is\nto say, the ability which produces modern machines is in reality just as\nmuch a force of nature as that which makes live-stock fertile, and\nbrings raw wine to maturity. But the same line of argument will carry us\nmuch farther than this. As Dr. Beattie Crozier has shown in his work,\n_The Wheel of Wealth_, the part which nature plays in productive\nmachinery is not confined to the brains of the gifted inventors and\ntheir colleagues. It is incorporated in, and identified with, the actual\nmachines themselves. The lever, the cam, the eccentric, the crank, the\npiston, the turbine, the boiler with the vapour imprisoned in\nit--devices which it has taxed the brains of the greatest men to\nelaborate and to co-ordinate--were all latent in nature before these men\nmade them actual; and when once such devices are actualised it is\nnature that makes them go. There is not merely a transformation of so\nmuch human energy into the same amount of natural energy; but nature\nadds to the former a non-human energy of her own; as--to take a good\nillustration of Dr. Crozier's--obviously happens in the case of a charge\nof gunpowder, which, \"when used for purposes of blasting, has,\" he\nobserves, \"in itself a thousand times the quantity of pure economic\npower that is bought in the work of the labourers who supply and mix the\ningredients.\" That is to say, whenever human talent invents and produces\na machine which adds to the productivity of any one who uses it with\nsufficient intelligence, the inventor has shut up in his machine some\npart of the forces of nature, as though it were an efreet whom a\nmagician has shut up in a bottle, and whose services he can keep for\nhimself, or hand over to others. The efreets shut up in machinery will\nnot work for human beings at all, unless there are human magicians who\nmanage thus to imprison them. They therefore belong to the men who, in\nvirtue of their special capacities, are alone capable of the effort\nrequisite to perform this feat; and it matters nothing to others, by\nwhom the efreets' services are borrowed, whether the effort in question\noccupied a year or a day, or whether it took place yesterday or fifty\nyears ago.\n\nThe borrowed efreet produces the same surplus in either case, and\ninterest is a part of this surplus which goes, not to the efreet himself\n(for this is not possible), but to his master, just as a cab-fare is\npaid to the cabman and not his horse.\n\nMachine-capital, then--or capital in its typical modern form--consists\nof productive forces which are usable by, and which indeed exist for,\nthe human race at large, because, and only because, they have been\ncaptured and imprisoned in implements by the efforts of exceptional men,\nwhose energy thus exercised is perpetuated, and can be lent to others;\nand what these men receive as interest from those by whom their energy\nis borrowed, is a something ultimately due to the energy of the lenders\nthemselves--nor is this fact in any way altered by lapse of time. Thus,\nso far as these special men are concerned, the alleged difference\nbetween earned income and unearned altogether disappears; and if one man\nlives in luxury for sixty years on the interest of an invention which it\ntook him but a month to perfect, while another man every day has to toil\nfor his daily bread, the difference between the two consists not in the\nfact that the one man works for his bread and the other man does nothing\nfor it, but in the fact that the work of one produces more in a day than\nthat of the other would do in a hundred lifetimes.\n\nHere, however, we shall be met with two important objections. In the\nfirst place, it will no doubt have occurred to many readers that\nthroughout the foregoing discussion we have assumed that the persons who\nreceive interest on machinery are in all cases the persons by whom the\nmachinery was invented and produced. To the actual inventors and\nproducers it may, indeed, be conceded that the interest which they\nthemselves receive has been earned by their own exertions; but no such\nconcession, it will be said, can be made to these men's heirs. An Edison\nor a Bessemer may have produced whatever income has come to him in his\nlatest years from the inventive efforts of his earliest; but if such a\nman has a son to whom this income descends--a half-witted degenerate who\nsquanders it on wine and women, who will not work with his hands and who\ncannot work with his head--no one can pretend that, in any sense of the\nword, a fool like this produces any fraction of the thousands that he\nconsumes. And though all of those who live on the interest of inherited\ncapital are not foolish nor vicious, yet in this respect they are all of\nthem in the same position--they have not produced their incomes, and so\nhave no moral right to them.\n\nIn the second place, the following argument, which was discussed in an\nearlier chapter, will also be brought forward, refurbished for the\npresent occasion. Let us grant, it will be said, that the inventions\nwhich have enriched the world were originally due to the talents of\nexceptional men, and that without these exceptional men the world would\nnever have possessed them; but when once they have been made, and their\npowers seen in operation, the human race at large can, if left to\nitself, take over these powers from the inventors just as the inventors\ntook them over from nature. Indeed, this constantly happens. Any boy\nwith a turning-lathe can to-day make a model steam-engine, and no one\nwill contend that such a model was not made by himself, on the ground\nthat it could not have been made either by him or by anybody unless\nWatt, with his exceptional genius, had invented steam as a motive-power.\nOne might as well contend that a savage does not really light his own\nfire, on the ground that the art of kindling wood was found out by\nPrometheus, and that no one, except for him, would have had any fires at\nall. The truth is, it will be said, that in such cases as these the\npowers of the exceptional man, originally confined to himself, are, when\nhis invention is once in practical operation, naturally shared by his\nfellows, who can only be restrained from using them by artificial\ndevices such as patents--these devices being at best, from a moral point\nof view, devices by which one man who has given a cheque to another man\nsteals back half the money as soon as the cheque is cashed.\n\nNow, both these arguments, so far as they go, are true; but neither has\nany bearing on the problem which is now before us. That problem\narises--let me observe once more--out of the assumption that, as a\nmatter of justice, every man has a right to the products of all such\nforces as are his own; whence it follows that nobody has a right to the\nproducts of any forces which are not definitely in himself. Let us\ntake, then, the latter of the above arguments first. It would doubtless\nbe absurd to contend, were Prometheus alive to-day, that because he\ninvented the art of striking fire from flints he ought to be paid a\ntribute by every savage who boiled a kettle; for the savage can strike a\nflint as well as Prometheus himself could. But if fire could be kindled\nonly by a particular sort of match which Prometheus alone could make,\nthe fact that he was really the lighter of all fires would be obvious,\nand his claim to a payment in respect of the lighting of every one of\nthem would be as sound as the claim of the lighter of street-lamps to\nhis wages. If \"Man and Superman\" were not a play, but a hoot, which Mr.\nShaw had invented in order to call attention to himself, and which any\nstreet boy could imitate with the same results, it would be idle for Mr.\nShaw to claim a right to royalties from the street boys; but it would be\nidle only because it would not be possible to collect them. He is able\nto collect them on his play because, and only because, his play exists\nin a form which is susceptible of legal protection. If in justice he has\na right to these, as he no doubt has, he would, if abstract justice were\nthe sole determining factor, have an equal right to royalties on the use\nof his peculiar hoot. He fails to have any such right because, as a\nmatter of fact, the principle of abstract justice with which we are here\nconcerned--that every one has a right to everything that he himself\nproduces--has, in common with all abstract moral principles whatsoever,\nno application to cases in which, from the nature of things, it is\nwholly impossible to enforce it.\n\nAnd the same criticism is applicable to the other argument before us,\nwhich admits that a man who invents a productive machine, or who writes\na remunerative play, is, so long as he lives, entitled, because he is\nthe true producer of them, to certain profits arising from the use of\neither; but adds that his rights to such profits end with his own life,\nand lose all sanction in justice the moment they are transferred to an\nheir. In the heir's hands, it is urged, they entirely change their\ncharacter, and, instead of enabling a man to secure what is honestly his\nown, become means by which he is enabled to steal what morally belongs\nto others.\n\nNow, if it is seriously contended that nobody has a right to anything\nwhich at some time or other he has not personally produced, the interest\non machinery, as soon as the inventor dies, not only ought not to belong\nto the inventor's heir, but it ought not to belong to anybody; for if\nthis interest is not produced by the heir, it is certainly not produced\nby any of the heir's contemporaries. A contention like this is absurd;\nthere must therefore be something amiss with the premises which lead up\nto it. Socialists who admit that an inventor during his lifetime has a\nright to the interest resulting from the use of his own inventions,\nendeavour to solve the difficulty by maintaining that after his death\nboth invention and interest should pass into the hands of the state; but\nthis doctrine, on whatever grounds it may be defended, cannot be\ndefended as based on the principle now in question, that the sole valid\ntitle to possession is personal production. It must, if it is based on\nany abstract moral principle at all, be based on one of a much more\ngeneral kind, according to which the ultimate standard of justice is not\nthe deeds of the individual, but the general welfare of society.\n\nHere it is true that the appeal is still to abstract justice, but it is\nnot an appeal to abstract justice only. In order to condemn interest on\nany such ground as this, it is necessary to assume or prove that to make\ninterest illegal, or to confiscate it by taxation when it arises, or by\nany other means to render its enjoyment impossible, will as a matter of\nfact have the result desired--namely, a permanent rise in the general\nlevel of prosperity. It is only by means of an assumption of this purely\npractical kind that the abstract moral principle can be applied to the\ncase at all; and thus let us approach the problem from whatever side we\nwill, we are brought from the region of theory down into that of\npractice, not, indeed, by an abrupt leap, but by a gradual and necessary\ntransition. We are not abandoning our considerations of what, in\nabstract justice, ought to be; but we are compelled to interpret what\nought to be by considerations of what, as the result of such and such\narrangements, will be.\n\nTo sum up, then, the conclusions which we have reached thus far--if we\nconfine our attention to those recipients of interest who have\nthemselves produced the capital from which the interest is derived, and\ncompare such incomes with those which renew themselves only as the\nresult of continued effort, it is absolutely impossible, on any general\ntheory of justice, to sanction the latter as earned, and condemn the\nformer as unearned. If, on the other hand, we turn to those whose\nincomes consist of interest on capital produced by, and inherited from,\ntheir fathers, and if we argue that here at all events we come to a\nclass of interest on which its living recipients can have no justifiable\nclaim, since we start with admitting that it originates in the efforts\nof the dead, our argument, though plausible in its premises, is\nstultified by its logical consequence; since the same principle on which\nwe are urged as a sacred duty to take the income in question away from\nits present possessors, would forbid our allowing it to pass into the\npossession of anybody else. In short, if continued daily labour, or else\nthe exercise of invention, or some other form of ability, at some period\nof their lives by persons actually living, constitutes in justice the\nsole right to possession, the human race as a whole has no right to\nprofit by any productive effort on the part of past generations; but\neach generation ought, so far as is practicable, to start afresh in the\nposition of naked savages. The fact that nobody would maintain a\nfantastic proposition like this is sufficient to show that, on the tacit\nadmission of everybody, it is impossible to attack interest by insisting\non any abstract distinction between incomes that are earned and\nunearned, and treating the latter as felonious, while holding the former\nsacred. It is equally true, however, that on such grounds alone it is no\nless impossible to defend interest than to attack it; and here we arrive\nat what is the real truth of the matter--namely, that in cases like the\npresent the principles of ideal justice do not, indeed, give us false\nguidance, but give us no guidance at all, unless we take them in\nconnection with the concrete facts of society, and estimate social\narrangements as being either right or wrong by reference to the\npractical consequences which do, or which would result from them.\n\nThe practical aspects of the question we will discuss in the following\nchapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nTHE SOCIALISTIC ATTACK ON INTEREST AND THE NATURE OF ITS SEVERAL ERRORS\n\nIf we reconsider what we have seen in the last chapter, we shall realise\nthat the moral or theoretical attack on interest, as income which is\nunjustifiable because it has not been personally earned, is, when tested\nby the logic of those who make it, an attack, not on interest itself,\nbut on bequest; and that such is the case will become even more evident\nwhen we see what the theory comes to, as translated into a practical\nprogramme.\n\nThe majority of those who attack interest to-day, no matter whether in\nother respects they are advocates of socialism or opponents of it, agree\nin declaring that what a man has personally produced he has a perfect\nright to enjoy and spend as he pleases. The only right they deny to him\nis the right to any further products which, before the capital has been\nspent by him, may result from the productive use of it. Now, the\npractical object with which this restriction is advocated is to render\nimpossible, not accumulations of wealth (for these are recognised as\nlegitimate when the reward of personal talent), but merely their\nperpetuation in the hands of others who are economically idle. So far,\ntherefore, as this practical object is concerned, it would matter little\nwhether the man by whom the accumulation was made were allowed to\nreceive interest on it during his own lifetime or no, provided that this\nright to interest were not transmissible to his heir; or even whether he\nwere allowed or were not allowed to leave anything to an heir at all.\nFor the heir at best would merely receive a sum which, since it could\nnot be used by him so as to bring about its own renewal, would be bound\nsoon to exhaust itself; and the general effect of permitting bequests of\nthis sterilised kind would differ from the effect of prohibiting\nbequests altogether, not because it would tend to render accumulated\nfortunes permanent, but only because it would protract for a decade or\ntwo the process of their inevitable dissipation.\n\nWe may, therefore, say that, for the purposes of the present discussion,\nthe modern attack on interest, considered apart from any otherwise\nsocialistic programme, practically translates itself into this--namely,\nthe advocacy of a scheme which, as regards the actual producers of\ncapital, leaves their existing rights both to principal and interest\nuntouched, and would not even extinguish altogether their existing\npowers of bequest, but would limit the exercise of these to the\nprincipal sum only,[23] and prohibit the transmission to any private\nperson of any right whatever to the usufruct of its productive\nemployment.\n\nHere, then, at last, we have something definite to discuss--a single\nproposed alteration in certain existing arrangements; and by comparing\nthe situation which actually exists to-day with that which the proposed\nalteration, if carried into effect, would produce, we shall see whether\nthe alteration is workable and practically defensible or no. Let us\nbegin with the situation which actually exists to-day, confining\nourselves to those features of it which are vital to the present issue.\n\nLet us take two men of practically contrasted types, each of whom has\ninherited a capital of fifty thousand pounds. The ultimate object of\neach is, in one way or another, to make his capital provide him with the\nlife that he most desires; but the first man is thoughtful, far-seeing,\nand shrewd, while the second cares for nothing but the gaiety and\npleasure of the moment; and they deal with their capitals in accordance\nwith their respective characters. The first meets, let us say, with the\ninventor of an agricultural machine, which will, if successfully\nmanufactured, double the wheat crop of every acre to the cultivation of\nwhich it is applied. He places his capital, as a loan, in this\ninventor's hands. The machine is constructed, and used with the results\ndesired; and the man who has lent the capital receives each year a\nproportion of the new loaves which are due to the machine's efficiency,\nand would not have existed otherwise. The second man invests his fortune\nin any kind of security which has the advantage of being turned easily\ninto cash, and draws out month by month so many hundred pounds, without\nreference to anything but the pleasures he desires to purchase; and by\nthe end of a few years both his capital and his income have disappeared.\n\nNow, any one judging these men by the current standards of common-sense\nwould, while praising the first as a model of moral prudence, condemn\nthe second as a fool who had brought his ruin upon himself, and curtly\ndismiss him, if a bachelor, as being nobody's enemy but his own. But\nbefore we indorse either of these judgments as adequate, let us consider\nmore minutely what in each case has been really done.\n\nLet us start, then, with noting this. Whether a man invests his capital\nin any productive machine and then lives on the interest, or else spends\nit as income on his own personal pleasures, he is doing in one respect\nprecisely the same thing. He is giving something to other men in order\nthat they in return may make certain efforts for his benefit, of a kind\nwhich he himself prescribes. This is obviously true when, spending his\ncapital as income, what he pays for is personal service, such as that of\na butler or footman who polishes his silver plate. It is equally true\nwhen he pays for the plate itself. He is paying the silversmith so to\nexert his muscles that an ounce or a pound of silver may be wrought into\na specific form. If he pays a toy-maker to make him a dancing-doll, he\nis virtually paying him to dance in his own person. He is paying him to\ngo through a series of prescribed muscular movements. Similarly when he\npays a large number of men to construct a productive machine instead of\na doll or an ornament, he is paying for the muscular movements from\nwhich the machine results. Here we come back to one of the main economic\ntruths to the elucidation of which our earlier chapters were devoted. It\nwas there pointed out that the machinery of the modern world owes its\nexistence to the fact that men of exceptional talent, by possessing the\ncontrol of goods which a number of other men require, are able in return\nfor the goods to make these other men exert themselves in a variety of\nminutely prescribed and elaborately co-ordinated ways. In short, all\nspending is, on the part of those who spend, a determination of the\nefforts of others in such ways as the spender pleases. Further, as was\npointed out in an earlier chapter also, the only goods thus generally\nexchangeable for effort are those common necessaries of existence for\nwhich most men must always work, and which may here be represented by\nfood, the first and the most important of them. Hence, whenever the\nquestion arises of how any given capital shall be treated--of whether it\nshall be invested or else spent as income--this capital must be regarded\nas existing in the indeterminate form of food, which is equally capable\nof being treated in one way or the other. And any man's capital\nrepresents for him, according to its amount, the power of feeding, and\nso determining the actions of a definite number of other men for some\ndefinite period. Since, therefore, the two capitalists whose conduct we\nhave been taking as an illustration have been supposed by us to possess\nfifty thousand pounds apiece, we shall give precision to the situation\nif we say that each, at starting, has the power of feeding, and so\ndetermining the actions of, two hundred other men for a period of two\nyears.\n\nSo much, then, being settled, let us consider these further facts. Both\nthe capitalists, as we set out with observing, have in employing their\ncapital the same ultimate object--namely, that of securing through the\npurchased efforts of others a continuous supply of things which will\nrender their lives agreeable. And now in connection with this fact let\nus go back to another, which has also been pointed out before, that all\nefforts, the sole object of which is to please from moment to moment the\nman who directs and pays for them, are, whether embodied in the form of\ncommodities or no, really reducible to some kind of personal service,\nif a toy-maker, in return for food, makes a dancing-doll for another\nman, he might just as well have pirouetted for so many hours himself;\nand if the purchaser would be more amused by a man's antics than by a\npuppet's, this is precisely what the toy-maker would have been set to\ndo. In short, if we consider only the economic side of the matter,\nwithout reference to the moral, whenever a man spends anything on his\nown personal pleasure, he is virtually paying some other man, or a\nnumber of other men to dance for him.[24] What, therefore, both our\ncapitalists desire as their ultimate object, is to keep as many men as\nthey are able to provide with food always dancing for their pleasure, or\nin readiness to do so when wanted; but in setting themselves to achieve\nthis object in their two different ways, what happens is as follows.\n\nBoth use their capital by dispensing it in the form of daily rations to\ntwo hundred other men, on condition that these men do something; but the\nfirst feeds the other men, not on condition that they dance for him, or\ndo anything that ministers to his own immediate pleasure, but on\ncondition that they construct a machine which will enable, as soon as it\nis finished, a given amount of human effort to double the amount of food\nwhich such effort would have produced otherwise. Thus, by the end of two\nyears--the time which we suppose to be required for the machine's\ncompletion--though the original food-supply of the capitalist will all\nhave been taken up and disappeared, its place will have been taken by a\nmachine which will enable forever afterwards one-half of the two hundred\nmen to produce food for the whole. A hundred men, therefore, are left\nfor whom food can be permanently provided, without any effort to produce\nit being made by these men themselves; and since of this annual surplus\na part--let us call it half--will be taken as interest on the machine by\nthe man with whose capital it was constructed, he will now have the\nmeans of making fifty men dance for his pleasure in perpetuity; for as\noften as they have eaten up one supply of food, this, through the agency\nof the machine, will have been replaced by another.\n\nOur second capitalist, meanwhile, who deals with his capital as income,\nstarts with setting the dancers to dance for his behoof at once; and he\nkeeps the whole two hundred dancing and doing nothing else, so long as\nhe has food with which to feed them. This life is charming so long as it\nlasts, but in two years' time it abruptly comes to an end. The\ncapitalist's cupboard is bare. He has no means of refilling it. The\ndancers will dance no more for him, for he cannot keep them alive; and\nthe efforts for two years of two hundred men, as directed by a man who\ntreats his capital as income, will now have resulted in nothing but the\ndestruction of that capital itself, and a memory of muscular movements\nwhich, so far as the future is concerned, might just as well have been\nthose of monkeys before the deluge.\n\nNow, if we take the careers of our two capitalists as standing for the\ncareers of two individuals only, and estimate them only as related to\nthese men themselves, we might content ourselves with indorsing the\njudgment which conventional critics would pass on them, and say of the\none that he had acted as his own best friend, and dismiss the other as\nnobody's enemy but his own. But we are, in our present inquiry, only\nconcerned with individuals as illustrating kinds of conduct which are,\nor which might be, general; and the effects of their conduct, which we\nhere desire to estimate, are its effects of it, not on themselves, but\non society taken as a whole. If we look at the matter in this\ncomprehensive way, we shall find that the facile judgments to which we\nhave just alluded leave the deeper elements of our problem altogether\nuntouched.\n\nThe difference between the ultimate results of the two ways of treating\ncapital will, to the conventional critic, seem to have been sufficiently\nexplained, by saying that the energy stored up in a given accumulation\nof food reappears when employed in one way, in the efficiency of a\npermanent machine; and is, when employed in the other, so far as human\npurposes are concerned, as completely lost as it would have been had it\nnever existed. But if we reconsider a fact which was dwelt upon in our\nlast chapter, we shall see that the difference is really much greater\nthan this.\n\nWhen the potential energy residing in so much food has been converted\ninto the energy of so much human labour, and when this is so directed\nthat a productive machine results from it, there is in the machine, as\nDr. Crozier puts it, an indefinitely larger amount of \"pure economic\npower,\" than that which has been expended in the work of the labourers'\nmuscles. While the energy of the labourers has merely resulted in a\nbottle, or a cage, we may say, of sufficient strength, the genius of the\nman who directed them has captured and imprisoned an elemental slave in\nit, who, so long as the cage confines him, will supplement the efforts\nof human muscle with his own. But when the energy latent in food is\nconverted into such efforts as dancing, the result produced is the\nequivalent of the human effort only. Thus in the modern world of\nscientific enterprise and invention, to invest capital in machinery and\nthen live on the interest from it, means to press into the service of\nmankind an indefinite number of non-human auxiliaries, and year by year\nto live on a part of the products which these deathless captives are\nnever tired of producing.\n\nTo spend capital as income on securing immediate pleasures means either\nto forgo the chance of adding any new auxiliaries to those that we\npossess already, or else to let those who are at our service already,\none after one, escape us--or, in other words, to make the productive\nforce now at the disposal of any prosperous modern country decline\ntowards that zero of efficiency from which industrial progress starts,\nand which marks off helpless savagery from the first beginnings of\ncivilisation.\n\nIt is no doubt inconceivable, in the case of any modern nation, that a\nclimax of the kind just indicated could never reach its completion. If\nall the capitalists, for example, of Great Britain or America, were\nsuddenly determined to live on their capital itself, they could do so\nonly by continuing for a considerable time to employ a great deal of it\nprecisely as it is employed at present. Indeed, so long as they\ncontinued to demand the luxuries which machines produce, it might seem\nthat it was hardly possible for them to get rid of their capital at all.\nBut what would really happen may be briefly explained thus:--\n\nIf we take the case of any modern country, the amount of its income at\nany given time depends for its sustentation on machines already in\nexistence; and its increase is dependent on the gradual supersession of\nthese by new ones yet more efficient. But the efficiency of the former\nwould soon begin to decrease, and would ultimately disappear altogether,\nunless they were constantly repaired and their lost substance was\nrenewed; while the latter would never exist unless there were men to\nmake them. Hence, under modern conditions, in any prosperous and\nprogressive country, a large portion of what is called the manufacturing\nclass is always engaged, not in producing articles of consumption,\ncomfort, or luxury, but in repairing and renewing the machines by which\nsuch articles are at present multiplied, or else in constructing new\nmachines which shall supplement or replace the old. Thus, in Great\nBritain, towards the close of the nineteenth century, these makers and\nrepairers of machinery were, with the exception of coal-miners, the\nindustrial body whose proportional increase was greatest. In the modern\nworld the spending of capital as income is a process which, in\nproportion as it became general, would accomplish itself by affecting\nthe position of men like these. It would consist of a withdrawal of men\nwho are at present occupied in maintaining existing machines, or else in\nconstructing new ones from their anvils, hammers, files, lathes, and\nfurnaces, and making them dance instead. This withdrawal would, in\nproportion as it became general, render the construction of new machines\nimpossible, and would leave the efficiency of those now in use to\nexhaust itself.\n\nThat such is the case is illustrated on a small scale by the conduct of\nindividuals who live on their capital now. If a farmer, whose capital\nconsists largely of an agricultural plant, desires to spend more than\nhis proceeds of his farm are worth, he virtually takes the men who have\nbeen mending his barns and reapers, and sets them to build a buggy which\nwill take him to the neighbouring races. The varnish on the buggy is\nbought with the rust on the reaper's blades; the smart, weather-proof\napron with the barn's unmended roof. If the managing body of a railroad\npays a higher dividend to the shareholders than can be got out of its\nnet earnings, the results are presently seen in cars that are growing\ndirty, in engines that break down, in rotten sleepers, and in trains\nthat run off the track. The men who were once fed out of a certain\nportion of the traffic receipts to keep these things in repair, are now\nfed to dance for the shareholders, thus supplying them with spurious\ndividends. A farm or a railroad which was managed on these principles\nwould ultimately cease to produce or to do anything for anybody; and if\nall modern capital were managed in a similar way, all the multiplied\nluxuries distinctive of modern civilisation would, one by one, disappear\nlike crops which were left to rot for lack of machines to reap them\nwith, and train services which had ceased because the engines were all\nburned out.\n\nThat such a climax should ever, in any modern country, complete itself\ncannot, let me say once more, be apprehended as a practical possibility;\nbut it is practically impossible only because the earlier stages of the\napproach to it would lead to a situation that was intolerable long\nbefore it ceased to be irreparable. And here we reach the point to\nwhich the foregoing examination has been leading us. It is precisely\nthis course of conduct, the end of which would be general ruin, that any\nattack on interest, by means of special taxation or otherwise, would, so\nlong as it lasted, stimulate and render inevitable. Let me point\nout--though it ought in a general way to be self-evident--precisely how\nthis is.\n\nWe start with assuming--for, as we have seen already, so much is\nconceded by those who attack interest to-day--that the owners of\ncapital, however their rights may be restricted, still have rights to it\nof some kind. But a man's rights to his capital will not be rights at\nall unless they empower him to use it in one way or another as a means\nof ministering to his own personal desires; and it is possible for him\nso to use it in one or other of two ways only--either by keeping it in\nthe form of some productive machine or plant, and living on a part of\nthe values which this produces, or by trenching on the substance of the\nmachine or the plant itself in the manner, and with the results, which\nhave just been explained and analysed. If, therefore, capitalists are to\nbe virtually deprived of their interest, either by means of a special\ntax on \"unearned incomes\" or otherwise, but are yet permitted to enjoy\ntheir capital somehow, no course is open to them but to employ for their\nprivate pleasures the men by whom this capital, in such forms as\nmachines or railroads, is at present maintained, renewed, and kept from\nlapsing into a state in which it would be unable to do or to produce\nanything. And if any one still thinks that, by such a course of conduct,\nif ever it became general, as it would do under these conditions, the\nowners of capital would be injuring themselves alone, he need only\nreflect a little longer on one of our suggested illustrations, and ask\nhimself whether the gradual deterioration of railroads would have no\neffect on the world beyond that of impoverishing the shareholders. It\nwould obviously affect the many as much as it affected the few, and the\nkind of catastrophe that would result from the deterioration of\nrailroads is typical of that which would result from the deterioration\nof capital generally.\n\nIt would, then, be a sufficient answer to those who attack interest, and\npropose to transfer it from its present recipients to the state, to\nelucidate, as has here been done, the two following points: firstly,\nthat to interest as a means of enjoying wealth--the right to such\nenjoyment itself not being here disputed--the only alternative is a\nsystem which would thus prove fatal to everybody; and, further, that,\nconversely, the enjoyment of wealth through interest not only possesses\nthis negative advantage, but is actively implicated in, and is the\nnatural corollary of, that progressive accumulation of force in the form\nof productive machinery to which all the augmented wealth of the modern\nworld is due. By the identification of the enjoyment of capital with\nthe enjoyment of some portion of the products of it, the good of the\nindividual capitalist is identified with the good of the community; for\nit will, in that case, be the object of all capitalists to raise the\nproductivity of all capital to a maximum; while a system which would\ncompel the possessor, if he is to enjoy his capital at all, to do so by\ndiminishing its substance and allowing its powers to dwindle, would\nidentify the only advantage he could possibly get for himself with the\nimpoverishment of everybody else, and ultimately of himself also.\n\nBut the crucial facts of the case have not been exhausted yet. There are\nfew phenomena of any complex society which are not traceable to more\ncauses than one, or at least to one cause which presents itself under\ndifferent aspects. Such is the case with interest. Its origin, its\nfunctions, and its justification, in the modern world, must be\nconsidered under an aspect, at which hitherto we have only glanced.\n\nThroughout the present discussion we have been assuming that the\nquestions at issue turn ultimately on the character of human motive. On\nboth sides it has been assumed that men of exceptional powers will not\nproduce exceptional amounts of wealth, unless they are allowed the right\nof enjoying some substantial proportion of it. This is a psychological\ntruth which, together with its social consequences, has been dealt with\nelaborately in two of our earlier chapters. It was there shown that the\nproduction of exceptional wealth by those men whose peculiar powers\nalone enable them to produce it, involves efforts on their part which,\nunlike labour, cannot be exacted of them by any outside compulsion, but\ncan only be educed by the prospect of a secured reward; and that this\nreward consists, as has just been said, of the enjoyment of a part of\nthe product proportionate to the magnitude of the whole. But what the\nproportion should be, and in what manner it should be enjoyed, were\nquestions which were then passed over. They were passed over in order\nthat they might be discussed separately. It was pointed out, however,\nthat the reward, in order to be operative, must be such as will be felt\nto be sufficient by these men themselves, and that its precise amount\nand quality can be determined by them alone--just as, if what we desire\nis to coax an invalid to eat, we can coax him only with food which he\nhimself finds appetising. Let us now take these questions up again, and\nexamine them more minutely, and we shall find that interest is justified\nfrom a practical point of view by the fact that the enjoyment of capital\nby this particular means is not only the sole manner of enjoying it\nwhich is consistent with the general welfare, but also constitutes the\nadvantage which, in the eyes of most great producers, gives to capital\nthe larger part of its value, and renders the desire of producing it\nefficient as a social motive.\n\nThe reasons why the right to interest forms, in the eyes of the active\nproducers of capital, the main object of their activity are to be found,\nfirstly, in the facts of family affection, and, secondarily, in those of\ngeneral social intercourse, which together form the medium of by far the\nlarger part of our satisfactions. In spite of the selfishness which\ndistinguishes so much of human action, a man's desire to secure for his\nfamily such wealth as he can is one of the strongest motives of human\nactivity known; and the fact that it operates in the case of many who\nare notoriously selfish otherwise, shows how deeply it is ingrained in\nthe human character. One of the first uses to which a man who has\nproduced great wealth puts it is in most cases to build a house more or\nless proportionate to his means; and it is his pride and pleasure to see\nhis wife and children acclimatise themselves to their new environment.\nBut such a house would lose most of its charm and meaning for him if the\nfortune which enabled him to live in it were to dwindle with each day's\nexpenditure, and his family after his death were to be turned into the\nstreet, beggars. If each individual were a unit whose interests ended\nwith himself; if generations were like stratified rocks, superposed one\non another but not interconnected; if--to quote a pithy phrase, I do not\nknow from whom--\"if all men were born orphans and died bachelors,\" then\nthe right to draw income from the products of permanently productive\ncapital would for most men lose much of what now makes it desirable.\n\nBut since individuals and generations are not thus separated actually,\nbut are, on the contrary, not merely as a scientific fact, but as a fact\nwhich is vivid to every one within the limits of his daily consciousness\ndovetailed into one another, and could not exist otherwise, a man's own\nfortune, with the kind of life that is dependent on it, is similarly\ndovetailed into fortunes of other people, and his present and theirs is\ndovetailed into a general future.\n\nWe have seen how this is the case with regard to his own family; but the\nmatter does not end there. Individual households do not live in\nisolation; and there are for this fact two closely allied reasons. If\nthey did there could be no marriage; there could also be nothing like\nsocial intercourse. It is social intercourse of a more or less extended\nkind that alone makes possible, not only love and marriage, but most of\nthe pleasures that give colour to life. We see this in all ranks and in\nall stages of civilisation. Savages meet together in numerous groups to\ndance, like civilised men and women in New York or in London. The feast,\nor the meal eaten by a large gathering, is one of the most universal of\nall human enjoyments. But in all such cases the enjoyment involves one\nthing--namely, a certain similarity, underlying individual differences,\nbetween those persons who take part in it. Intimate social intercourse\nis, as a rule, possible only between those who are similar in their\ntastes and ideas with regard to the minute details which for most of us\nmake up the tesserae of life's daily mosaic--similar in their manners,\nin their standards of beauty and comfort, in their memories, their\nprospects, or (to be brief) in what we may call their class\nhabituations. This is true of all men, be their social position what it\nmay. It is true, of course, that the quality of a man's life, as a\nwhole, depends on other things also, of a wider kind than these. It\ndepends not only on the fact, but also on his consciousness of the fact,\nthat he is a citizen of a certain state or country, though with most of\nits inhabitants he will never exchange a word; or that he is a member of\na certain church; or that, being a man and not a monkey, his destiny is\nidentified with that of the human species. But, so far as his enjoyment\nof private wealth is concerned, each man as a rule, though to this there\nare individual exceptions, enjoys it mainly through the life of his own\n_de facto_ class--the people whose manners and habits are more or less\nsimilar to his own, because they result from the possession of more or\nless similar means. He is, therefore, not interested in the permanence\nof his own wealth only. He is equally interested in the permanence of\nthe wealth of a body of men, the life of which must, like that of all\ncorporations, be continuous.\n\nThere is in this fact much more than at first appears. Let us go back to\na point insisted on in the previous chapter. It was there shown, in\nconnection with the question of abstract justice, that those who attack\ninterest on the ground that it is essentially income for which its\nrecipients give nothing in return, fall into the error of ignoring the\nelement of time, without reference to which the whole process of life is\nunintelligible. It was shown, by various examples, that in a large\nnumber of cases the efforts which ultimately result in the production of\ngreat wealth do not produce it till after, often till long after, the\noriginal effort has come altogether to an end. Let us now take this\npoint in connection, not with abstract theories, but with the concrete\nfacts of conduct. Here again those who attack interest fall into the\nsame error. For example, in answer to arguments used by me when speaking\nin America, one socialistic critic eagerly following another called my\nattention by name to persons notoriously wealthy, some of whom had never\nengaged in active business at all, while others had ceased to do so for\nmany years; and demanded of me whether I contended that idlers such as\nthese are doing anything whatever to produce the incomes which they are\nnow enjoying. If they are, said the critics, let this wonderful fact be\ndemonstrated. If they are not, then it must stand to reason that the\ncommunity will gain, and cannot possibly suffer, by gradually taking the\nincomes of these persons away from them, and rendering it impossible\nthat incomes of a similar kind shall in the future be ever enjoyed by\nanybody.\n\nThe general nature of the error involved in this class of argument can\nbe shown by a very simple illustration. In many countries the\ngovernment year by year makes a large sum by state lotteries. This may\nbe a vicious procedure, but let us assume for the moment that it is\nlegitimate, and that everybody is interested in its perpetuation. The\nlargest of the prizes drawn in such lotteries is considerable--often\namounting to more than twenty thousand pounds. Now, as soon as the\ndrawing on any one occasion had been accomplished, it might be argued\nwith perfect truth, in respect of that occasion only, that, the man who\nhad won such fortune having done nothing to produce it, the community\nwould be so much richer if the government, having paid the money to him,\nwere to take it all back again by a special tax on winnings. This would\nbe true with respect to that one occasion; but if any government were to\nfollow such a procedure systematically, no one would ever buy a lottery\nticket again, and the whole lottery system would thenceforth come to an\nend.\n\nWhat is true of wealth won in lotteries is true of wealth in general. If\nthe desire of possessing wealth is in any way a stimulus to the\nproduction of it, those who are motived to produce it by this desire\nto-day are motived by the desire of a something which they see to be\ndesirable and attainable because they see it around them, embodied in\nthe position of others, as the final result of the efforts of a\nlong-past yesterday. If this result were never to be seen realised, no\nhuman being would make any effort to achieve it.\n\nLet us--to go into particulars--suppose that the sole desire which moves\nexceptional men to devote their capacities to the augmentation of their\ncountry's wealth is the desire to join a class which, whether idle or\nactive otherwise--whether devoted to mere pleasure or to philanthropy,\nor an enlightened patronage of the arts, or to speculative thought and\nstudy--is itself in an economic sense altogether unproductive. In order\nto join such a class, and to work with a view of joining it, society\nmust be so organised that such a class can exist; and the fact of its\nexistence constitutes the main moral magnet which, on our present\nhypotheses, is permanently essential to the development of the highest\neconomic activity. Such being the case, then, the following conclusion\nreveals itself, which, although it may seem paradoxical, will be found\non reflection to be self-evident--the conclusion namely, that a class\nwhich, if considered by itself, is absolutely non-productive, may, when\ntaken in connection with the social system as a whole, be an essential\nand cardinal factor in the working machinery of production,\nconstituting, as it would do by the mere fact of its existence, the\ncharged electric accumulator by which the machinery is kept in motion;\njust as the mere existence of men, seen to be secure in their possession\nof the prizes of past lotteries, is the magnet which alone can make\nother men buy tickets for the lotteries of the future.\n\nI have given this case as an assumption; but it is not an assumption\nonly. The desire for wealth as a means of living in absolute idleness is\nprobably confined, as a fact, in all countries to a few. In America\nespecially it is a matter for surprise to strangers that men who have\nmade fortune beyond the possibilities of pleasurable expenditure so\nrarely retire on them to cultivate the pursuits of leisure. But even in\nAmerica, if they do not value leisure for themselves, they value it for\ntheir women, to whom, there as in all countries, four-fifths of the\ncharm and excitement of private life are due; and the sustained\npossibility of leisure, even if not the enjoyment of it--a possibility\nwhich can rest only on a basis of sustained fortunes--is the main\nadvantage which, in all civilised countries, gives wealth its meaning\nfor those who already possess it, and its charm for those who are, in\norder to possess it, exerting at any given moment their energies and\ntheir intellect in producing it.\n\nThe source of such sustained fortunes, in their distinctively modern\nform, is, as we have seen already, such and such forces of nature,\nwhich, captured and embodied in machines and other appliances by the\nmasters of science and men of executive energy, and subsequently\ndirected by other men of cognate talents, supplement the efficiency of\nordinary human labour, thus yielding the surplus of which modern\nfortunes are a part, the remainder forming a fund which diffuses itself\nthroughout the mass of the community. That part of the surplus which\nconstitutes such fortunes is interest; and now let us sum up what in\nthis and the previous chapter our examination of the criticisms directed\nagainst interest has shown us.\n\nIn the first place, then, we saw that the theoretical attack on\ninterest, on the ground that it is income which is not earned by the\nrecipients, but is virtually taken by the few from the products of the\nlabour of the many, is chimerical in its moral and false in its economic\nimplications.\n\nWe saw, in the second place, coming down to the practical aspects of the\nquestion, that interest is the only form in which the owners of capital\ncan enjoy their wealth at all, without drying up the sources from which\nmost modern wealth springs, thus bringing ruin to the community no less\nthan to themselves.\n\nWe saw, in the third place, that, quite apart from the welfare of the\ncommunity, interest constitutes, for the owners of wealth themselves,\nthe means of enjoying it which mainly makes it desirable, and the object\nfor the sake of which, at any given moment, the master spirits of\nindustry are engaged in producing and increasing it.\n\nThe reader must observe, however, that this conclusion is here stated in\ngeneral terms only. It has not been contended--for this question has not\nbeen touched upon--that interest may not, when received in certain\namounts, be justifiably made the subject of some special taxation. Any\nsuch question must be decided by reference to special circumstances,\nand cannot be discussed apart from them. Nor has it been contended that,\nwithin certain limits, the power of bequest is not susceptible of\nmodification without impairing the energies of the few or the general\nprosperity of the many. The sole point insisted on here is this: that\nany special tax on interest, or any tampering with the powers of\nbequest, begins to be disastrous to all classes alike, if it renders,\nand in proportion as it renders to any appreciable degree, the natural\nrewards of the great producers of wealth less desirable in their own\neyes than they are and otherwise would be.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[23] Mr. G. Wilshire, in his detailed criticism of my American speeches,\nstates twice over the modern socialistic doctrine as to this point. The\nmaker or inheritor of capital, he says, could, under socialism, \"buy all\nthe automobiles he wanted, all the diamonds, all the champagne; or he\ncould build a palace. In other words, he could spend his income in\nconsumable goods, but he could not invest either in productive machinery\nor in land.\"\n\n[24] This is merely saying that all economic effort has, for its\nultimate aim, a desirable state of consciousness, which might be\ncontemptible if it really depended on looking on at dances, or refined\nif it depended on the cultivation of flowers, or listening to great\nsingers, or witnessing the performance of great plays, or on the\nenlargement of the mind by travel.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY\n\nHaving now dealt with two of those three ideas or conceptions which,\nthough not necessarily connected with the specific doctrines of\nsocialism, owe much of their present diffusion to the activity of\nsocialistic preachers--that is to say, the idea, purely statistical,\nthat labour, as contrasted with the directive ability of it, actually\nproduces much more than it gets, and the further idea that the many\ncould ameliorate their own position by appropriating the interest now\nreceived by the few; having dealt with these two ideas, it remains for\nus to consider the third--namely, that which is generally suggested by\nthe formula Equality of Opportunity, or, more particularly (for this is\nwhat concerns us here), equality of opportunity in the domain of\neconomic production.\n\nWe must start with recollecting that if the wealth of a country depends\nmainly, as we have here seen that it does, on the efforts of those of\nits citizens whose industrial talent is the greatest, the more\neffectively all such talent is provided with an opportunity of exerting\nitself the greater will the wealth and prosperity of that country be. In\nother words, if potential talent is to be actualised, opportunity is as\nneedful for its exercise as is the stimulus of a proportionate reward.\nThat economic opportunity ought, therefore, to be equalised, so far as\npossible, is, as an abstract principle, too obvious to need\ndemonstration. But abstract principles are useless till we apply them to\na concrete world; and when we apply our abstract doctrine of opportunity\nto the complex facts of society and human nature, a principle so simple\nin theory will undergo as many modifications as a film of level water\nwill if we spill it over an uneven surface.\n\nThe first fact which will confront us, when we come down from theory to\nfacts, is one which could not be more forcibly emphasised than it has\nbeen by a socialistic writer,[25] whose utterances were quoted in one of\nour previous chapters. This is the fact that, in respect of their powers\nof production, just as of most others, human beings are in the highest\ndegree unequal. They are unequal in intellect and imagination. More\nespecially they are unequal in energy, alertness, executive capacity,\ninitiative and in what we may describe generally as practical driving\nforce. Such being the case, then, if it could actually be brought about\nthat every individual at a given period of his life should start with\neconomic opportunities identical with those of his contemporaries, each\ngeneration would be like horses chosen at haphazard, and started at the\nsame instant to struggle over the same course in the direction of a\ncommon winning-post. And what would be the result? A few individuals\nwould be out of sight in a moment; the mass at various distances would\nbe struggling far behind them, and a large residuum would have been\nblown before it had advanced a furlong. Thus, by making men's\nadventitious opportunities equal, we should no more equalise the result\nfor the sake of which the opportunities were demanded than we should\ngive every cab-horse in London a chance of winning the Derby by allowing\nit on Derby Day to go plodding over the course at Epsom. On the\ncontrary, by inducing all to contemplate the same kind of success, we\nshould be multiplying the sense of failure and dooming the majority to a\ngratuitous discontent with positions in which they might have taken a\npride had they not learned to look beyond them.\n\nAnd now, from this fact, to which we shall come back presently, let us\nturn to the question of how, and in what respects, equality of\nopportunity is in practical life attainable.\n\nThe most obvious manner in which an approach to such equality can be\nmade is by an equalisation of opportunities for education in early life,\nor, in other words, by a similar course of schooling, a similar access\nto books, and similar leisure for studying them. But even here, at this\npreliminary stage, we shall find that the equality of opportunity is to\na large extent illusory. Let us suppose that there are two boys, equal\nin general intelligence, and unequal only in their powers of mental\nconcentration, who start their study of German side by side in the same\nclass-room. One boy, in the course of a year or so, will be able to read\nGerman books almost as easily as books in his own language, while the\nother will hardly be able to guess the drift of a sentence without\nlaborious reference to his hated grammar and dictionary. Now, when once\na situation such as this has arisen, the opportunities of the two boys\nhave ceased to be equal any longer. The one has placed himself at an\nindefinite advantage over the other, which is quite distinct from the\nsuperiority originally inherent in himself. Among the educational\nopportunities which reformers desire to equalise, one of the chief is\nthat of access to adequate libraries; and it is, they say, in this\nrespect more perhaps than any other that the rich man has at present an\nunfair advantage over the poor. It is virtually this precise advantage\nthat will now be in possession of the boy who has thus far outstripped\nhis classmate. In his mastery of German he has a key to a vast\nliterature--a key which the other has not. He is now like a rich man\nwith an illimitable library of his own, while the other by comparison is\nlike a poor man who can get at no books at all. Thus if opportunity, in\nits most fundamental form, were equalised for all boys, no matter how\ncompletely, the equality would be only momentary. It would begin to\ndisappear by the end of the first few months, not because the boys would\nstill, as they did at starting, be bringing to their tasks intrinsically\nunequal faculties, but because some of them would have already\nmonopolised the aid of an adventitious knowledge by which the practical\nefficiency of their natural faculties would be multiplied.\n\nBut education is merely a preliminary to the actual business of life.\nLet us pass on to the case of our equally educated youths when they\nenter on the practical business of making their own fortunes. What kind\nof equal opportunity can be possibly provided for them now?\n\nSince socialists are the reformers who, in dealing with objects aimed\nat, are least apt to be daunted by practical difficulties, let us see\nhow equality of opportunity in business life is conceived of and\ndescribed by them. The general contention of socialists in this respect\nis, says one of their best-known American spokesmen,[26] \"that the fact\nthat capital is now in the hands of private persons gives them an unfair\nadvantage over those who own nothing,\" for capital consists of the\nimplements of advantageous production; and socialists, he says, would\nsecure an equality of industrial opportunity for all by \"vesting the\nownership of the means of production in the state\"; the result of which\nprocedure would, he goes on, be this: \"that every one would have his own\ncanoe, and it would be up to each to do his own paddling.\"\n\nNow, purists in thought and argument might make it a subject of\ncomplaint, perhaps, that the writer, as soon as he reaches a vital part\nof his argument, should lapse into the imagery of an old music-hall\nsong. But such an objection would be very much misplaced, for the ideas\nentertained by socialists as to this particular point closely resemble\nthose which make music-hall songs popular. They consist of familiar\nimages which are accepted without being analysed; and the image of man\nseated in an industrial canoe of his own, and paddling it just as he\npleases without reference to anybody else, very admirably represents the\nlot which socialists promise to everybody, and which dwells as a\npossibility in the imagination of even their serious thinkers. But let\nus take this dream in connection with facts of the modern world, which\nthese men, in much of their reasoning, themselves recognise as\nunalterable, and we shall see it give place to realities of a very\ndifferent aspect.\n\nTo judge from our author's language, one would suppose that modern\ncapital was made up entirely of separate little implements like\nsewing-machines, and that every one would, if the state were the sole\ncapitalist, receive on application a machine of the same grade, which he\nmight take away with him, and use or break in a corner. Now, if modern\ncapital were really of this nature, the state no doubt might conceivably\ndo something like what the writer suggests, in the way of dealing out\nsimilar industrial opportunities to everybody. But, as he himself is\nperfectly well aware, the distinctive feature of capital in the modern\nworld is one which renders any such course impossible. Modern capital,\nas a whole, in so far as it consists of implements, consists not of\nimplements which can be used by each user separately. It consists of\nenormous mechanisms, with the works and structures pertaining to them,\nwhich severally require to be used by thousands of men at once, and\nwhich no one of the number can use without reference to the operations\nof the others. If the state were to acquire the ownership of all the\nsteel-mills at Pittsburg, how could it do more than is done by their\npresent owners, to confer on each of the employes any kind of position\nanalogous to that of a man \"who has his own canoe\"? The state could just\nas easily perform the literal feat of cutting up the _Lusitania_ into a\nhundred thousand dinghys, in each of which somebody would enjoy the\nequal opportunity of paddling a passenger from Sandy Hook to\nSouthampton.\n\nBut we will not tie our author too closely to the terms of his own\nmetaphor. The work from which I have just quoted is a booklet[27] in\nwhich he devoted himself to the task of refuting in detail the\narguments urged by myself in the course of my American speeches. We\nwill, therefore, turn to his criticism of what, in one of my speeches, I\nsaid about the state post-office, and we shall there get further light\nwith regard to his real meaning. I asked how any sorter or\nletter-carrier employed in the post-office by the state was any more his\nown master, or had any more opportunities of freedom, than a messenger\nor other person employed by a private firm. Our author's answer is this:\n\"That the public can determine what the wages of a postman shall\nbe--that is, they can, if they so choose (by their votes), double the\nwages now prevailing.\" Therefore, our author proceeds, \"the postal\nemploye, in a manner, may be considered as a man employing himself.\"\nNow, first let me observe that, as was shown in our seventh chapter,\nwages under socialism, just as under the present system, could be no\nmore than a share of the total product of the community; and the claims\nadvanced to a share of this by any one group of workers would be\nconsequently limited by the claims of all the others. The question,\ntherefore, of whether the postmen's wages should be doubled at any time,\nor whether they might not have to be halved, would not depend only on\nvotes, but, also and primarily, on the extent of the funds available;\nand in so far as it depended on votes at all, the votes would not be\nthose of the postmen. They would be the votes of the general public,\nand any special demand on the part of one body of workers would be\nneutralised by similar demands on the part of all the others. Further,\nif these \"employers of themselves\" could not determine their own wages,\nstill less would they determine the details of the work required of\nthem. A postman, like a private messenger, is bound to do certain\nthings, not one of which he prescribes personally to himself. At stated\nhours he must daily be present at an office, receive a bundle of\nletters, and then set out to deliver them at private doors, in\naccordance with orders which he finds written on the envelopes. Such is\nthe case at present, and socialism would do nothing to modify it. If our\nauthor thinks that a man, under these conditions, is his own employer,\nour author must be easily satisfied, and we will not quarrel with his\nopinion. It will be enough to point out that the moment he descends to\ndetails his promise that socialism would equalise economic opportunity\nfor all reduces itself to the contention that the ordinary labourer or\nworker would, if the state employed him, have a better chance of\npromotion and increased wages than he has to-day, when employed by a\nprivate firm, and (we may add, though our author does not here say so)\nthat some sort of useful work would be devised by the state for\neverybody.\n\nNow, although every item of this contention, and especially the last, is\ndisputable, let us suppose, for argument's sake, that it is, on the\nwhole, well founded. Even so, we have not touched the real crux of the\nquestion. We have dealt only with the case of the ordinary worker, who\nfulfils the ordinary functions which must always be those of nine men\nout of every ten, let society be constituted in what way we will. It\nremains for us to consider the case of those who are fitted, or believe\nthemselves to be fitted, for work of a wider kind, and who aspire to\ngain, by performing this, an indefinitely ampler remuneration. This\nambitious and exceptionally active class is the class for which the\npromise of equal opportunities possesses its main significance, and in\nits relation to which it mainly requires to be examined. Indeed, the\nwriter from whom we are quoting recognises this himself; for he gives\nhis special attention to the economic position of those who, in greater\nor less degree, are endowed with what he calls \"genius\"; and in order to\nillustrate how socialism would deal with these, he cites two cases from\nthe annals of electrical engineering, in which opportunities, not\nforthcoming otherwise, were given by the state to inventors of realising\nsuccessful inventions.\n\nNow, what our author and others who reason like him forget, is that the\nopportunities with which we are here concerned differ in one\nall-important particular from those which concern us in the case either\nof education or of ordinary employment. If one boy uses his educational\nopportunities ill, he does nothing to prejudice the opportunities of\nothers who use them well. Should a sorter of letters, who, if he had\nbeen sharp and trustworthy, might have risen to the highest and\nbest-paid post in his department, throw his opportunities away by\ninattention or otherwise, the loss resulting is confined to the man\nhimself. The opportunities open to his fellows remain what they were\nbefore. But when we come to industrial activity of those higher and\nrarer kinds, on which the sustained and progressive welfare of the\nentire community depends, such as invention, or any form of far-reaching\nand original enterprise, the kind of opportunity which a man requires is\nnot an opportunity of exerting his own faculties in isolation, like a\nsorter who is specially expert in deciphering illegible addresses. It is\nan opportunity of directing the efforts of a large number of other men.\nApart from the case of craftsmanship and artistic production, all the\nhigher industrial efforts are reducible to a control of others, and can\nbe made only by men who have the means of controlling them. Since this\nis one of the principal truths that have been elucidated in the present\nvolume, it is sufficient to reassert it here, without further comment.\nIf, therefore, a man is to be given the opportunity of embodying and\ntrying an invention in a really practical form, it will be necessary to\nput at his disposal, let us disguise the fact as we may, the services of\na number of other men who will work in accordance with his orders. This,\nas we have seen already, is what is done by the ordinary investor\nwhenever he lends capital to an inventor. He supplies him with the food\nby which the requisite subordinates must be fed; and the state, were\nthe state the capitalist, would do virtually the same thing. It could\ngive him his opportunity in no other way.\n\nFurther, if the invention in question turns out to be successful--here\nis another point which has already been explained and emphasised--the\nwage-capital which has been consumed by the labourers is replaced by\nsome productive implement, which is more than the equivalent of the\nlabour force spent in constructing it. If, on the other hand, the\ninvention turns out to be a failure, the wage-capital is wasted, and, so\nfar as the general welfare is concerned, the state might just as well\nhave thrown the whole of it into the sea. Since, then, the opportunities\nwhich the state would have at its disposal, would consist at any moment\nof a given amount of capital, and since any portion of this which was\nused unsuccessfully would be lost, the number of opportunities which the\nstate could allocate to individuals would be limited, and each\nopportunity which was wasted by one man would diminish the number that\ncould be placed at the disposal of others.\n\nNow, any one who knows anything of human nature and actual life knows\nthis--that the number of men who firmly and passionately believe in the\nvalue of their own inventions, or other industrial projects, is far in\nexcess of those whose ideas and projects have actually any value\nwhatsoever. When the _Great Eastern_, the largest ship of its time, had\nbeen built on the Thames by the celebrated engineer Brunel, its\nlaunching was attended with unforeseen and what seemed to be insuperable\ndifficulties. Mr. Brunel's descendants have, I believe, still in their\npossession, a collection of drawings, sent him by a variety of\ninventors, and representing all sorts of devices by which the launching\nmight be accomplished. All were, as the draughtsmanship was enough to\nshow, the work of men of high technical training; but the practical\nsuggestions embodied in one and all of them could not have been more\ngrotesque had they emanated from a home for madmen. To have given an\nequality of opportunity to all this tribe of inventors of putting their\ndevices to the test would have probably cost more than the building of\nthe ship itself, and the ship at the end would have been stranded in the\ndock still. This curious case is representative, and is sufficiently\nillustrative of the fact that opportunity of this costly kind could be\nconceded to a few only of those who would demand, and believe themselves\nto deserve it; and the state, as the trustee of the public, would have,\nunless it were prepared to ruin the nation, to be incomparably more\ncautious than any private investor.[28]\n\nOf the general doctrine, then, that the opportunities of all should be\nequal, we may repeat that, as an abstract proposition, it is one which\ncould be contested by nobody; but we have seen that, when applied to\nsocieties of unequal men, and to the various tasks of life, its original\nsimplicity is lost, and it does not become even intelligible until we\ndivest it of a large part of its implications. Economic or industrial\nopportunity is, we have seen, of three kinds: firstly, educational\nopportunity; secondly, the opportunity of performing and receiving the\nfull equivalent of an ordinary task or service, such as that of a\npostman, the value of which depends on its conformity to a prescribed\npattern or schedule; and thirdly, opportunity of directing the work of\nothers, thereby initiating new enterprises or realising new\ninventions--a kind of opportunity requiring the control of capital,\nwhich capital, whether provided by the state or otherwise, would be lost\nto the community unless it were used efficiently.\n\nWith regard to educational opportunity--it has been seen that it is\npossible to equalise this, approximately if not entirely, at a given\ntime in the early lives of all, but that it would be possible to\nmaintain the equality for a short time only.\n\nWith regard to opportunities of earning a livelihood subsequently by\nperforming one or other of those ordinary and innumerable tasks which\nmust always fall to the lot of four men out of every five, we may say\nthat an equalisation of opportunities of this kind is the admitted\nobject of every reformer and statesman who believes that the prosperity\nof a country is synonymous with the welfare of its inhabitants. In\nachieving this object there are, however, two difficulties--one being\nthe difficulty, occasional and often frequent in any complex society, of\ndevising work which has any practical value, and replaces its own cost,\nfor all those who are able and willing to perform it; the other being\nthe difficulty which arises from the existence of persons who are\nincapacitated, by some species of vice, from performing, or from\nperforming adequately, any useful work whatever. We must here content\nourselves with observing that the official directors of industry, who\nwould constitute the state under socialism, would be no more competent\nto solve the first than are the private employers of to-day, while there\nis nothing in the scheme of society put forward by socialists, which\neven purports to supply any solution of the second, other than a more\ndrastic application of the methods applied to-day.\n\nThirdly, with regard to equality of opportunity for those whose main\nambition is not to be provided with some task-work performable by their\nown hand, but to achieve some position which will enable them to\nprescribe tasks to others, and thus do justice to their real or supposed\ntalents by the construction of great machines, or the organisation of\ngreat enterprises--in other words, with regard to those persons whose\nambition is to obtain what are called the prizes of life, and who think\nthemselves treated unjustly if they find themselves unable to gain\nthem--we have seen that to provide equal opportunities for all or even\nfor most of these, is in the very nature of things impossible. The\nfundamental reason of this, let me say once more, is the fact that the\nnumber of men possessing sufficient talent to conceive ambitious schemes\nof one kind or another far exceeds the number of those whose talents are\ncapable of producing any useful results; and to give to this majority\nopportunities of testing their projects by experiment would be merely to\ndeplete the resources of the entire nation for the sake of demonstrating\nto one particular class that abortive talents are worse than no talents\nat all.\n\nHere we are in the presence of a fact far wider than this special\nmanifestation of it. In the animal and the vegetable world, no less than\nin the human, the successes of nature are the siftings of its partial\nfailures; and in order to secure such services as are really productive\nit must always be necessary to squander opportunities to a certain\nextent in the testing of talents which ultimately turn out to be barren.\nBut cases of this kind may, at all events, be reduced to a minimum; and\nthe reduction of their number is possible, because they are largely an\nartificial product. In order to understand how this is, we must go back\nagain to the question of equality of opportunity in education, and\nconsider it under an aspect which has not yet engaged our attention.\n\nWe started with supposing the establishment of a system of education\nwhich would offer to all the same books and teachers, and also--for this\nwas part of our assumption--equal leisure to profit by them; and we\nnoted how soon opportunities would cease to be equal on account of the\ndifferent uses which would be made of them by different students. What\nmust now be noted is that as matters have been conducted hitherto,\nattempts to make educational opportunities equal do tend to produce an\nequality of a certain kind. Though they have no tendency to equalise\npowers of achievement, they tend to produce an artificial equality of\nexpectation. In order to elucidate the nature of this fact, and its\nsignificance, I cannot do better than quote a passage from Ruskin,\nadmirable for its trenchant felicity, which, since it occurs in a book\nmuch admired by socialists, may be commended to their special\nattention.[29] Economic demand, Ruskin says, is the expression of\neconomic desires; but the constitution of human nature is such that\nthese desires are divisible into two distinct kinds--desires for the\ncommodities which men \"need,\" and desires for commodities which they\n\"wish for.\" The former arise from those appetites and appetencies in\nrespect of which all are equal. They are virtually a fixed quantity, and\nthe economic commodities requisite for their healthy satisfaction\nconstitute a minimum which is virtually the same for all men. The\nlatter, instead of being fixed, are capable of indefinite variation, and\nin these--the desires for what men \"wish for\" but do not \"need\"--we have\nthe origin \"of three-fourths of the demands existing in the world.\"\n\"These demands are,\" he proceeds, \"romantic. They are founded on\nvisions, idealisms, hopes, and affections, and the regulation of the\npurse is, in its essence, regulation of the imagination and the heart.\"\n\nWith the demands which originate in men's equal needs we are not\nconcerned here. It is impossible to modify them appreciably either by\neducation or otherwise; but the desires or wishes which Ruskin so\nhappily calls \"romantic\" vary in intensity and character to an almost\nindefinite degree, not only in different individuals, but also in the\nsame individuals when submitted to different circumstances. Those of\nthem, indeed, which are most generally felt are often, to speak\nstrictly, not so much desires as fancies; and while the image of their\nfulfilment may please or amuse the imagination, their non-fulfilment\nproduces no sense of want. So long as they are merely fancies, they\nraise no practical question. They raise a practical question only when\ntheir insistence is such that their non-fulfilment produces an active\nsense of privation; and whether in the case of any given individual\nthey reach or do not reach this pitch of intensity depends upon two\nthings. One of these is the individual's congenital temperament, his\ntalents, his strength of will, and the vividness or vagueness of his\nimagination. Education, understood in its more general sense, is the\nother. Now, men varying as they do in respect of their congenital\ncharacters, the strength of their romantic wishes bears naturally some\nproportion to their own capacities for attempting to satisfy these\nwishes for themselves. Few men, for example, have naturally a strong\nwish for conditions which will enable them to exercise exceptional\npower, unless they are conscious of possessing exceptional powers to\nexercise. Hence, though this consciousness is in many cases deceptive,\nthe struggle of men for power is confined within narrow limits, and the\ndisappointments which embitter those who fail to attain it are naturally\nconfined within narrow limits also. So long as matters stand thus, the\nmajority of men are unaffected. But wishes which are naturally confined\nto exceptional men, who are more or less capable of realising them, are\nsusceptible by education of indefinite extension to others who are not\nso qualified; and in the case of these last, the results which they\nproduce are different. They multiply the number of those who demand\npreferential opportunities, in order that they may enter on a struggle\nin which they must ultimately fail.\n\nThey multiply the number of those, to a still greater extent, who demand\nthat positions or possessions shall be somehow provided for them by\nsociety, without reference to any struggle on their own part at all. The\nartificial diffusion of \"wish\" among these two distinguishable classes\nis thus accomplished by education in somewhat different ways; but the\n_modus operandi_ is in one respect the same in both. It consists of an\nartificial enlarging, in the case of all individuals alike, of the ideas\nentertained by them of their natural social rights; and an active\ncraving is thus generalised for possessions and modes of life, which\nnine men out of ten would otherwise have never wasted a thought upon,\nand which not one out of ten can possibly make his own. How easily this\nidea of rights is susceptible of enlargement by teaching, and how\nefficient it is in creating a desire where none would have existed\notherwise, is vividly illustrated by those not infrequent cases in which\nmen, who for half their lives have considered themselves fortunate in\nthe possession of moderate affluence, have suddenly been led to suppose\nthemselves the heirs of peerages or great estates, and have died insane\nor bankrupt in consequence of their vain endeavours to secure rank or\nproperty which, had it not been for a purely adventitious idea, would\nhave affected their hopes and wishes no more than the moon did. It is\nprecisely in this manner that much of the education of to-day operates\nin consequence of current attempts to equalise it[30]; and since\neducation is the cause of the evils here in question, it is in some\nreform of education that we must hope to find a cure. What the general\nnature of this reform would be can be indicated in a few words. It would\nnot involve a reversal, it would involve a modification only, of the\nprinciple now in vogue, and can, indeed, best be expressed by means of\nthe same formula, if we do but add to it a single qualifying word--that\nis to say, the word \"relative\" prefixed to the word \"equality,\" when we\nspeak of equality of opportunity as the end at which we ought to aim.\nLet me explain my meaning.\n\nThe logical end of all action is happiness; and happiness, so far as it\ndepends on economic conditions at all, is an equation between desire and\nattainment. The capacities of men being unequal, and the objects of\ndesire which they could, under the most favourable circumstances, make\ntheir own, being unequal likewise, the ideal object of education, as a\nmeans to happiness, is twofold. It is, on the one hand, so to develop\neach man's congenital faculties as to raise them to their maximum power\nof providing him with what he desires; and on the other hand to limit\nhis desires, by a due regulation of his expectations, to such objects\nas his faculties, when thus developed, render approximately if not\ncompletely attainable. Thus, relatively to the individual, the ideal\nobject of education is in all cases the same; but since individuals are\nnot equal to one another, education, if it is to perform an equal\nservice for each, must be in its absolute character to an indefinite\nextent various; just as a tailor, if he is to give to all his customers\nequal opportunities of being well dressed, will not offer them coats of\nthe same size and pattern. He will offer them coats which are equal only\nin this--namely, their equally successful adaptation to the figures of\ntheir respective wearers.\n\nOf course, so to graduate any actual course of education that in the\ncase of each individual it is the best which it is possible to conceive\nfor him--that it should at once enable him to make the most of his\npowers, and \"regulate,\" as Ruskin says, \"his imagination and his hopes\"\nin accordance with them, would require a clairvoyance and prevision not\ngiven to man; but the end here specified--namely, an equality of\nopportunity which is relative--is the only kind of equality which is\neven theoretically possible; and it is one, moreover, to which a\nconstant approximation can be made. The absolute equality which is\ncontemplated by socialists, and by others who are more or less vaguely\ninfluenced by socialistic sentiment, is, on the contrary, an ideal which\neither could not be realised at all, or which, in proportion as it was\nrealised, would be ruinous to the nation which provided it, and would\nbring nothing but disappointment to those who were most importunate in\ndemanding it. The only conceivable means, indeed, by which it could be\nextended beyond the first few years of life, would be by a constant\nprocess of handicapping--that is to say, by applying to education the\nsame policy that trade-unions apply to ordinary labour. If one\nbricklayer has laid more bricks than his fellows, he virtually has to\nwait until the others have caught him up. Similarly, if equality of\nopportunity, other than an equality that is relative, were to be\nmaintained in the sphere of education, a clever boy who had learned to\nspeak German in a year would have to be coerced into idleness until\nevery dunce among his classmates could speak it as well as he; and a\nsimilar process would be repeated in after-life. This policy, as has\nbeen pointed out already, is, even if wasteful, not ruinous in the\nsphere of ordinary labour--a fact which shows how wide the difference is\nbetween the ordinary faculties, as applied to industry, and the\nexceptional; but no one in his senses, not even the most ardent apostle\nof equality, would dream of recommending its application to efforts of a\nhigher kind, and demand that the clever boys should periodically be made\nto wait for the stupid, or that the best doctor in the presence of a\ngreat pestilence should not be allowed to cure more patients than the\nworst one.\n\nIf, then, it is, as it must be, the ideal aim of social arrangements\ngenerally to enable each to raise his capacities to their practical\nmaximum, and adjust his desires and his expectations to the practical\npossibilities of attainment, \"relative equality of opportunity,\" firstly\nin education and secondly in practical life, is a formula which\naccurately expresses the means by which this end is to be secured; but\nthe absolute equality which is contemplated by socialists and others is\nan ideal which, the moment we attempted to translate it into terms of\nthe actual, would begin to fall to pieces, defeating its own purpose;\nand there is nothing in socialism, were socialism otherwise practicable,\nany more than there is the existing system, which would obviate this\nresult.\n\nIndeed, it may be observed further that, though the idea of equality of\nopportunity in general is not inconsistent with a socialistic scheme of\nsociety, as socialists of the more thoughtful kind have now come to\nconceive of it, it belongs distinctively to the domain of the fiercest\nindividual competition. For in so far as socialism differs from ordinary\nindividualism, it differs from it in this--that, instead of encouraging\neach man to do his utmost because what he gets will be proportionate to\nwhat he does, it aims at establishing a greater equality in what men get\nby making this independent of whether they do much or little; in which\ncase the main concern of the individual would be the certainty of\ngetting what he wanted, not the opportunity of producing it.\n\nThe three ideas or conceptions, then, which have engaged our attention\nin this and the three preceding chapters--namely, the idea that labour\ndoes, as a statistical fact, produce far more in values than it at\npresent gets back in wages; the idea that the mass of the population\ncould permanently augment its resources by confiscating all dividends as\nfast as they became due, and the idea that it is possible to provide for\nunequal men, for more than a moment of their lives, equal opportunities\nof experimenting with their real or imaginary powers, are ideas, indeed,\nwhich have all the vices characteristic of socialistic thought; but the\nfirst and the third have no necessary connection with socialism, and the\nsecond is not peculiar to it. We will now return to it as a system of\nexclusive and distinctive doctrines, and sum up, in general terms, the\nconclusions to which our examination of it is calculated to lead\nfar-seeing and practical men, and more especially active politicians.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[25] The Christian Socialist author of _The Gospel for To-day_. See\nchapter on Christian Socialism.\n\n[26] Mr. Wilshire, in his volume of criticism on my American speeches.\n\n[27] _Socialism: the Mallock-Wilshire Argument._ By Gaylord Wilshire.\nNew York, 1907.\n\n[28] While this work was in the press, one of the English Labour\nmembers, Mr. Curran, at a public meeting, gave his views, as a\nsocialist, about this very question--equality of industrial\nopportunity--and as an example of such opportunity already in existence,\nhe mentioned the cash-credit system, which prevails in banks in\nScotland. He seemed unaware that such advances of capital made in this\nsystem are made to picked men only. These men, moreover, have the\nstrongest stimulus to effect in the face that they will keep all their\nprofits. If a socialistic state gave cash-credits to everybody, it would\nconfiscate all the profits if the workers were successful, and have no\nremedy against them if they failed.\n\n[29] _Unto This Last._\n\n[30] See note to previous chapter, referring to the recent _Red\nCatechism_ for socialist Sunday schools, in which children are taught,\nas the primary article of faith, that the wage-earners produce\neverything, that the productivity of all is practically equal, and that\nall are entitled to expect precisely the same kind of life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nTHE SOCIAL POLICY OF THE FUTURE\n\nI was constantly asked by socialists in America whether I really\nbelieved that society, as it is, is perfect, and that there are no evils\nand defects in it which are crying aloud for remedy. Unless I believed\nthis--and that I could do so was hardly credible--I ought, they said, if\nI endeavoured to discredit the remedy proposed by themselves, to suggest\nanother, which would be better and equally general, of my own.\n\nNow, such an objection, as it stands, I might dismiss by curtly\nobserving that I did not, and could not, suggest any remedy other than\nsocialism, partly because the purport of my entire argument was that\nsocialism, if realised, would not be a remedy at all; and partly\nbecause, for the evils that afflict society, no general remedy of any\nkind is possible. The diseases of society are various, and of various\norigin, and there is no one drug in the pharmacopoeia of social reform\nwhich will cure or even touch them all, just as there is no one drug in\nthe pharmacopoeia of doctors which will cure appendicitis, mumps,\nsea-sickness, and pneumonia indifferently--which will stop a hollow\ntooth and allay the pains of childbirth.\n\nBut though such an answer would be at once fair and sufficient, if we\ntake the objection in the spirit in which my critics urged it, the\nobjection has more significance than they themselves suspected, and it\nrequires to be answered in a very different way. Socialism may be\nworthless as a scheme, but it is not meaningless as a symptom.\nRousseau's theory of the origin of society, of the social contract, and\nof a cure for all social evils by a return to a state of nature, had, as\nwe all know now, no more relation to fact than the dreams of an\nilliterate drunkard; but they were not without value as a vague and\nsymbolical expression of certain evils from which the France of his day\nwas suffering. As a child, I was told a story of an old woman in\nDevonshire who, describing what was apparently some form of dyspepsia,\nsaid that \"her inside had been coming up for a fortnight,\" and still\ncontinued to do so, although during the last few days \"she had swallowed\na pint of shot in order to keep her liver down.\" The old woman's\ndiagnosis of her own case was ridiculous; her treatment of it, if\ncontinued, would have killed her; but both were suggestive, as\nindications that something was really amiss. The reasoning of Rousseau,\nwho contended that the evils of the modern world were due to a departure\nfrom primeval conditions which were perfect, and that a cure for them\nmust be sought in a return to the manner of life which prevailed among\nthe contemporaries of the mammoth, and the immediate descendants of the\npithekanthropos, was identical in kind with the reasoning of the old\nwoman. The reasoning of the socialists is identical in kind with both.\nIt consists of a poisonous prescription founded on a false diagnosis.\nBut just as the diagnosis, no matter how grotesque, which a patient\nmakes of his or of her own sufferings, and even the remedies which his\nor her fancy suggests, often assist doctors to discover what the ailment\nreally is, so does socialism, alike in its diagnosis and its proposed\ncure, call attention to the existence of ailments in the body politic,\nand may even afford some clue to the treatment which the case requires,\nthough this will be widely different from what the sufferer fancies.\n\nSuch being the case, then, in order that a true treatment may be\nadopted, the first thing to be done is to show the corporate patient\nprecisely how and why the socialistic diagnosis is erroneous, and the\nproposed socialistic remedies incomparably worse than the disease. To\nthis preparatory work the present volume has been devoted. Let us\nreconsider the outline of its general argument. As thoughtful socialists\nto-day are themselves coming to admit, the augmented wealth distinctive\nof the modern world is produced and sustained by the ability of the few,\nnot by the labour of the many. The ability of the few is thus productive\nin the modern world in a manner in which it never was productive in any\nprevious period, because, whereas in earlier ages the strongest wills\nand the keenest practical intellects were devoted to military conquest\nand the necessities of military defence, they have, in the modern world,\nto a constantly increasing degree, been deflected from the pursuits of\nwar and concentrated on those of industry. But the old principle remains\nin operation still, of which military leadership was only one special\nexemplification. Nations now grow rich through industry as they once\ngrew rich through conquest, because new commanders, with a precision\nunknown on battle-fields, direct the minutest operations of armies of a\nnew kind; and the only terms on which any modern nation can maintain its\npresent productivity, or hope to increase it in the future, consist in\nthe technical submission of the majority of men to the guidance of an\nexceptional minority. As for the majority--the mass of average\nworkers--they produce to-day just as much as, and no more than, they\nwould produce if the angel of some industrial Passover were henceforward\nto kill, each year on a particular day, every human being who had risen\nabove the level of his fellows, and, in virtue of his knowledge,\ningenuity, genius, energy, and initiative, was capable of directing his\nfellows better than they could direct themselves. If such an annual\ndecimation were inaugurated to-morrow in civilised countries such as\nGreat Britain and America, the mass of the population would soon sink\ninto a poverty deeper and more helpless than that which was their lot\nbefore the ability of the few, operating through modern capital, began\nto lend to the many an efficiency not their own. In other words, the\nentire \"surplus values\"--to adopt the phrase of Marx--which have been\nproduced during the last hundred and fifty years, have been produced by\nthe ability of the few, and the ability of the few only;[31] and every\nadvance in wages, and every addition to the general conveniences of\nlife, which the labourers now enjoy, is a something over and above what\nthey produce by their own exertions. It is a gift to the many from the\nfew, or, at all events, it has its origin in the sustentation and the\nmultiplication of their efforts, and would shrink in proportion as these\nefforts were impeded. If, then, the claims which socialists put forward\non behalf of labour are really to be based, as the earlier socialists\nbased them, on the ground that production alone gives a valid right to\npossession, labour to-day, instead of getting less than its due, is, if\nwe take it in the aggregate, getting incomparably more, and justice in\nthat case would require that the vast majority of mankind should have\nits standards of living not raised but lowered.\n\nIs it, then, the reader will here ask, the object of the present volume\nto suggest that the true course of social reform in the future would be\ngradually to take away from the majority some portion of what they at\npresent possess, and bind them down, in accordance with the teaching of\nsocialists in the past, to the little maximum which they could produce\nby their own unaided efforts? The moral of the present volume is the\nprecise reverse of this. Its object is not to suggest that they should\npossess no more than they produce. It is to place their claim to a\ncertain surplus not produced by themselves on a true instead of a\nfantastic basis.\n\nSocialists seek to base the claim in question, alternately and sometimes\nsimultaneously, on two grounds--one moral, the other practical--which\nare alike futile and fallacious, and are also incompatible with each\nother. The former consists of the _a priori_ moral doctrine that every\none has a right to what he produces, and consequently to no more. The\nlatter consists of an assumption that those who produce most will, in\ndeference to a standard of right of a wholly different kind, surrender\ntheir own products to those who produce least. The practical assumption\nis childish; and the abstract moral doctrine can only lead to a\nconclusion the opposite of that which those who appeal to it desire. But\nthe claim in question may, when reduced to reasonable proportions, be\ndefended on grounds both moral and practical, nevertheless, and the\npresent volume aims at rendering these intelligible. Let us return for a\nmoment to Rousseau and his theory of the social contract. We know to-day\nthat never in the entire history of mankind did any such conscious\ncontract as Rousseau imagined take place; but it is nevertheless true\nthat virtually, and by ultimate implication, something like a contract\nor bargain underlies the relation between classes in all states of\nsociety.\n\nWhen one man contracts to sell a horse for a certain price, and another\nman to pay that price for it, the price in question is agreed to because\nthe buyer says to himself on the one hand, \"If I do not consent to pay\nso much, I shall lose the horse, which is to me worth more than the\nmoney\"; and the seller says to himself on the other hand, \"If I do not\nconsent to accept so little, I shall lose the money, which is to me\nworth more than the horse.\" Each bases his argument on a conscious or\nsubconscious reference to the situation which will arise if the bargain\nis not concluded. Similarly, when any nation submits to a foreign rule,\nand forbears to revolt though it feels that rule distasteful, it\nforbears because, either consciously or subconsciously, it feels that\nthe existing situation, whatever its drawbacks, is preferable to that\nwhich would arise from any violent attempt to change it. The same thing\nholds good of the labouring classes as a whole, as related to those\nclasses who, in the modern world, direct them. By implication, if not\nconsciously, they are partners to a certain bargain. They are not\npartners to a bargain because they consent to labour, for there is no\nbargaining with necessity; and they would have to labour in any case, if\nthey wished to remain alive. They are partners to a bargain because they\nconsent to labour under the direction of other people. It is true that,\nas regards the present and the near future, they are confronted by\nnecessity even here. This is obviously true of countries such as Great\nBritain, in which, if the labour of the many were not elaborately\norganised by the few, three-fourths of the present population would be\nunable to obtain bread. Nevertheless, if we take a wider view of\naffairs, and consider what, without violating possibility, might\nconceivably take place in the course of a few disastrous centuries, the\nmass of modern labourers might gradually secede from the position which\nthey at present occupy, and, spreading themselves in families or small\nindustrial groups over the vast agricultural areas which still remain\nunoccupied, might keep themselves alive by labouring under their own\ndirection, as men have done in earlier ages, and as savages do still.\nThey would have, on the whole, to labour far harder than they do now,\nand to labour for a reward which, on the whole, would be incomparably\nless than that which is attainable to-day by all labour except the\nlowest. Moreover, their condition would have all the \"instability\"\nwhich, as Spencer rightly says, is inseparable from \"the homogeneous.\"\nIt could not last. Still, while it lasted, they could live; and, in\ntheory, at all events, the mass of the human race must be recognised as\ncapable of keeping themselves alive by the labour of pairs of hands\nwhich, in each case, are undirected by any intelligence superior to, or\nother than, the labourer's own. In theory, at all events, therefore,\nthis self-supporting multitude would be capable of choosing whether they\nwould continue in this condition of industrial autonomy, with all its\nhardships, its scant results, and its unceasing toil, or would submit\ntheir labour to the guidance of a minority more capable than themselves.\nSuch being the case, then, if by submitting themselves to the guidance\nof others they were to get nothing more than they could produce when\nleft to their own devices, they would, in surrendering their autonomy,\nbe giving something for nothing--a transaction which could not be\nvoluntary, and would be not the less unjust because, as all history\nshows us, they would be ultimately unable to resist it. Justice demands\nthat a surrender of one kind, made by one party, should be paid for by a\ncorresponding surrender of another kind, made by the other party; which\nlast can only take the form of a concession to labour, as a right, of\nsome portion of a product which labour does not produce. Labour can, on\ngrounds of general moral justice, claim this as compensation for\nacquiescence, even though the acquiescence may, as a matter of fact, be\ninvoluntary.\n\nHuman nature, however, being what it is, these purely moral\nconsiderations would probably have little significance if they were not\nreinforced by others of a more immediately practical kind. Let us now\nturn to these. The motive which prompts labour to demand more than it\nproduces is itself primarily not moral, but practical, and is so obvious\nas to need no comment. What concerns us here is the practical, as\ndistinct from any moral, motive, which must, when the situation is\nunderstood, make ability anxious to concede it. For argument's sake we\nmust assume that the great producers of wealth are men who have no other\nmotive ultimately than ambition for themselves and their families, and\nwould allow nothing of what they produce to be taken from them by any\nother human being except under the pressure of some incidental\nnecessity. There is one broad feature, however, which even men such as\nthese understand--the fact, namely, that for successful wealth\nproduction one of the most essential conditions is a condition of social\nstability, or a general acquiescence, at all events, in the broad\nfeatures of the industrial system, by means of which the production in\nquestion takes place. But if the labourers have no stake in the surplus\nfor the production of which such a system is requisite, it may be\nperfectly true that by escaping from it they would on the whole be no\nbetter off than they are, yet there is no reason which can be brought\nhome to their own minds why they should not seek to disturb it as often\nand as recklessly as they can. There is, at best, no structural\nconnection, but only a fractional one, between their own welfare and the\nwelfare of those who direct them; and a structural connection between\nthe two--a dovetailing of the one into the other--is what ability, no\nmatter how selfish, is in its own interests concerned before all things\nto secure. In other words, it is concerned in its own interests so to\narrange matters that the share of its own products which is made over to\nthe labourers shall be large enough, and obvious enough, and\nsufficiently free from accessory disadvantages, to be appreciated by the\nlabourers themselves; and the ideal state of social equilibrium would be\nreached when this share was such that any further augmentation of it\nwould enfeeble the action of ability by depriving it of its necessary\nstimulus, and, by thus diminishing the amount of the total product,\nwould make the share of the labourers less than it was before.\n\nThough an ideal equilibrium of this kind may be never attainable\nabsolutely, it is a condition to which practical wisdom may be always\nmaking approximations; but in order that it may be an equilibrium in\nfact as well as in theory, one thing further is necessary--namely, that\nboth parties should understand clearly the fundamental character of the\nsituation. And here labour has more to learn than ability; or perhaps\nit may be truer to say that socialism has given it more to unlearn. If\nany exchange takes place between two people, which by anybody who knew\nall the circumstances would be recognised as entirely just, but is not\nfelt to be just by one of the contracting parties, he, though he may\nassent to the terms because he can get none better, will be as much\ndissatisfied as he would have been had he been actually overreached by\nthe other. If, for example, he believed himself to be entitled to an\nestate of which the other was in reality not only the _de facto_, but\nalso the true legal possessor, and if the other, out of kindness (let us\nsay) towards a distant kinsman, agreed to pay him a pension, he would\ndoubtless accept the pension as a something that was better than\nnothing; but he would not be satisfied with a part when he conceived\nhimself to be entitled to the whole, and as soon as occasion offered\nwould go to law to obtain it. In other words, if two persons are to make\na bargain or contract which can possibly satisfy both, each must start\nwith recognising that the other has some valid right, and what the\nnature of this right is, to the property or position which is held by\nhim and which is the subject of the projected exchange. Unless this be\nthe case, any exchange that may be effected will, for one of the parties\nat least, not be a true bargain or contract, but an enforced and\ntemporary compromise. There will be no finality in it, and it will\nproduce no content.\n\nNow, in the case of the bargain or contract between labour and ability,\nthis last situation is precisely that which the teachings of socialism\nare at present tending to generalise. They are encouraging the\nrepresentatives of labour to regard the representatives of ability as a\nclass which possesses much, but has no valid right to anything, and with\nwhom in consequence no true bargain is possible; since, whatever this\nclass concedes short of its whole possessions will merely be accepted by\nlabour as a surrender of stolen goods, which merits resentment rather\nthan thanks, because it is only partial.\n\nThe intellectual socialists of to-day, and many of their less educated\nfollowers, will strenuously deny this. They will declare that they,\nunlike their predecessors, recognise that directive ability is a true\nproductive agent no less than ordinary labour is; and that able men, no\nless than the labourers, have rights which they may, if they choose,\nenforce with equal justice. And if we confine our attention to certain\nof their theoretical admissions, we need not go further than the pages\nof the present volume to remind ourselves that for this assertion there\nare ample, if disjointed, foundations. But the doctrine of modern\nsocialism must be judged, not only by its separate parts, but also by\nthe emphasis with which they are respectively enunciated, and by the\nmood of mind which, on the whole, it engenders among the majority of\nthose who are affected by it; and, whatever its leading exponents may,\non occasion, protest to the contrary, the main practical result which\nit has thus far produced among the masses has been to foment the\nimpression, which is not the less efficacious because it is not\nexplicitly formulated, that when labour and ability are disputing over\ntheir respective rights, ability comes into court with no genuine rights\nat all; and that, instead of representing (as it does) the knowledge,\nintellect, and energy to which the whole surplus values of the modern\nworld are due, it represents merely a system of decently legalised theft\nfrom an output of wealth which would lose nothing of its amplitude, but\nwould on the contrary still continue to increase were all exceptional\nenergy, knowledge, and intellect deprived of all authority and starved\nout of existence to-morrow.\n\nSo long as such an impression prevails, and indeed until it is\ndefinitely superseded by one more in consonance with facts, no\nsatisfactory social policy is practicable. Labour, as opposed to\nability, may be compared to a man who believes that his tailor has\novercharged him for a coat, and who disputes the account in a law court\nwith a view to its reasonable reduction. In such a case it will be\npossible for him to obtain justice. The tailor's claim for L12 may be\nreduced to a claim for L10, or L8 5_s._, or L6 15_s._ 6_d._ But if the\ncustomer's contention is that he ought to get the coat for nothing, and\nthat he does not in justice owe the tailor anything at all, he is making\na demand that no law court could satisfy, and by a gratuitous\nmisconception of his rights is doing all he can to preclude himself from\nany chance of obtaining them. The mood which socialism foments among the\nlabouring classes is precisely analogous to the mood of such a man as\nthis, and its results are analogous likewise. Its origin, however, being\nartificial and also obvious in its minutest particulars, the remedy for\nit, however difficult to apply, is not obscure in its nature. The mood\nin question results from a definite, a systematic, and an artificially\nproduced misconception of the structure and the main phenomena, good and\nevil, of society as it exists to-day, and the different parts played by\nthe different classes composing it. It has been the object of the\npresent volume to expose, one after another, the individual fallacies of\nwhich this general misconception is the result, not with a view to\nsuggesting that in society as it exists to-day there are no grave evils\nwhich a true social policy may alleviate, but with a view to promoting\nbetween classes, who are at present in needless antagonism, that sane\nand sober understanding with regard to their respective positions which\nalone can form the basis of any sound social policy in the future.\n\nOf the individual demands or proposals now put forward by socialists,\nmany point to objects which are individually desirable and are within\nlimits practicable; but what hinders, more than anything else, any\nsuccessful attempt to realise them is the fact that they are at present\nplaced in a false setting. They resemble a demand for candles on the\npart of visitors at an hotel, who would have, if they did not get them,\nto go to bed in the dark--a demand which would be contested by nobody if\nit were not that those who made it demanded the candles only as a means\nof setting fire to the bed-curtains. The demands for old-age pensions,\nand for government action on behalf of the unemployed, for example, as\nnow put forward in Great Britain, by labour Members who identify the\ninterests of labour with socialism, are demands of this precise kind.\nThe care of the aged, the care of the unwillingly and the discipline of\nthe willingly idle, are among the most important objects to which social\nstatesmanship can address itself; but the doctrines of socialism hinder\ninstead of facilitate the accomplishment of them, because they identify\nthe cure of certain diseased parts of the social organism with a\ntreatment that would be ruinous to the health and ultimately to the life\nof the whole.\n\nWe may, however, look forward to a time, and may do our best to hasten\nit, when, the fallacies of socialism being discredited and the mischief\nwhich they produce having exhausted itself, we may be able to recognise\nthat they have done permanent good as well as temporary evil--partly\nbecause their very perverseness and their varying and accumulating\nabsurdities will have compelled men to recognise, and accept as\nself-evident, the countervailing truths which to many of the sanest\nthinkers have hitherto remained obscure; and partly because socialism,\nno matter how false as a theory of society, and no matter how\nimpracticable as a social programme, will have called attention to evils\nwhich might otherwise have escaped attention, or been relegated to the\nclass of evils for which no alleviation is possible.\n\nEven to suggest the manner in which these evils would be treated by a\nsound and scientific statesmanship would be wholly beyond the scope of a\nvolume such as the present, for this reason, if for no other, that, as\nhas been said already, the evils in question are not one but many, each\ndemanding special and separate treatment, just as ophthalmia demands a\ntreatment other than that demanded by whooping-cough. But one general\nobservation may be fitly made, in conclusion, which will apply to all of\nthem. These remedies cannot be included under the heading of any mere\ngeneral augmentation of the pecuniary reward of labour taken in the\naggregate. The portion of the national dividend which goes to labour\nnow, in progressive countries such as Great Britain, Germany, and\nAmerica, is immensely greater than it was a hundred years ago, and\nunless industrial progress is arrested its tendency is to rise still\nfurther. The main evils to which a scientific statesmanship should\naddress itself arise from the incidental conditions under which this\ndividend is spent--conditions, largely improvable, which at present\ndeprive it of its full purchasing power. Of this I will give one\nexample--the present structure of great industrial towns. It cannot be\ndoubted that, if the sums now spent on the construction and maintenance\nof insanitary slums and alleys were employed in a scientific manner, a\nrent which has now to be paid for accommodation of the most degrading\nkind would suffice to command, on the strictest business principles,\nhomes superior to those which, if its amount were doubled, would hardly\nbe forthcoming for the labourer in most of our existing streets; while\nthe purchasing power of the existing income of labour would be increased\nconcurrently, and perhaps to a yet greater extent if much of the\neducation, which now has no other effect than of generating\nimpracticable ideas as to the abstract rights of man, were devoted to\ndeveloping in men and women alike a greater mastery of the mere arts of\nhousehold management.\n\nBut in merely mentioning these subjects I am transgressing my proper\nlimits. I mention them only with a view to reminding the reader once\nmore that the object of this volume is not to suggest, or supply\narguments for maintaining that existing conditions are perfect, or that\nsocialists are visionaries in declaring that they are capable of\nimprovement. Its object has been to expose that radical misconception of\nfacts which renders demands visionary that would not be visionary\notherwise, and to stimulate all sane and statesmanlike reformers by\nhelping them to see, and also to explain to others, that the improved\nconditions which socialism blindly clamours for are practicable only in\nproportion as they are dissociated from the theories of socialism.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[31] Like all generalisation dealing with complex matters, this must be\nqualified by individual exceptions. For example, men who have made\nfortunes for themselves, and have added to the world's stock, by work in\nthe gold-fields, have been in many cases _labourers_, directing their\nown efforts by their own intelligence. But some men have been\nexceptional in one or other of two ways--either in propinquity to the\nscene of action, or (and this is the more common case) in handihood,\ndetermination, and courage. It is not every one who has it in him to go\nin search of gold to Alaska.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nAbility, and labour defined, 19;\n  labour as opposed to, 29;\n  capital as the implement of, 32;\n  a name for the directive faculties, 33;\n  value of directive, 68;\n  monopoly of business, 89, 93;\n  and individual motive, 110;\n  modern socialists' recognition of products due to, 191;\n  rent of business, 191, 194\n\nAbstract justice, interest and, 204, 206, 208, 210, 212, 214, 216, 218,\n  220, 222, 224, 226\n\nActivity, two kinds represented by two groups of, 28;\n  military distinct from industrial, 121\n\nAgriculture, Mill on nature in, 181;\n  and rent, 192\n\nAllen, Grant, _The Woman Who Did_, 147\n\nArkwright, the inventor of the spinning-frame, 83, 197\n\nArtist, the case of an, 115\n\n\nBastiat, his plane, 213, 214\n\nBellamy, _Looking Backward_, 92;\n  his description of a socialistic Utopia, 92;\n  his argument, 105\n\nBessemer, 197, 220\n\nBoy messengers, 80\n\nBradlaugh, Charles, 85\n\nBrazil, Rossi fails to found a socialistic colony in, 141\n\nBrigand chief, his justification, 206\n\n\nCapital, is labour in an externalised and permanent form, 14;\n  is past labour crystallised, 14, 20;\n  as the implement of ability, 32;\n  fixed and circulating, 35;\n  the primary function of, 40;\n  its interest described by George as the gift of nature, 212\n\nCapitalism (a comparatively modern phenomenon), causes of its\n  accelerated development, 2;\n  as a working system, 3;\n  essence of modern, 14;\n  and wages, 16;\n  state and private, 62, 71;\n  economics of: the \"economic man\" and economic science, 123, 124\n\nCause and effect, 185\n\nCellini, Benvenuto, 24\n\nChristian socialism as a substitute for secular democracy,\n  _see_ Democracy; the message of, 153;\n  its view of the steel-kings and the oil-kings, 153, 158, 160;\n  its preaching a species of ecclesiastical electioneering, 156;\n  and the faculty of invention, 159;\n  abolishes competition, 160;\n  on the moral conversion of able men, 160\n\n_Christian Socialist, The,_ 150\n\nChristian socialists, are simply secular socialists of the more modern\n  and educated type, 163;\n  their temperamental deficiency finds its fullest expression in\n  socialism, 172\n\nColeridge, Lord, 135\n\nColossal fortunes, growth of, 130, 131\n\nCompetition, 160\n\nCorvee system, and slavery, 57, 58\n\nCrozier, Dr. Beattie, _Wheel of Wealth_, 217, 218, 236\n\n\nDarby of Coalbrookdale, 83\n\nDemand and supply, 143\n\nDemocracy, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148;\n  Christian socialism as a substitute for secular, 150, 152, 154, 156,\n  158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174\n\nDirection, wage-capital an implement of, 70\n\nDirective ability, 191;\n  its value, 68;\n  and socialism, 87;\n  and labour, 182, 187, 189-93\n\n---- faculties, 31;\n  function of the, as applied to the operations of modern labour, 29;\n  their function, illustrated by the case of a printed book, 29;\n  name for the, 33\n\nDudley, 82\n\n\nEclecticism, 186\n\nEconomic distinction, abolished by the truly socialistic scheme, 58\n\nEconomic emancipation, is entire abolition of the wage-system, 56\n\n---- man, the, 111, 123\n\n---- motive, personal gain the primary, 127\n\n---- opportunity, 254\n\n---- science, capitalism and, 124;\n  its reasonings, 177\n\n---- values, 166\n\nEconomics of capitalism, 123\n\nEddy, Mrs., her Christian science, 150\n\nEdison, 47, 150, 197, 220\n\nEducation, its ideal object as a means of happiness, 273\n\nElectric lighting of London, 84\n\nEquality of opportunity, 253, 254, 256, 258, 260, 262, 264, 266, 268,\n  270, 272, 274, 276\n\nEquilibrium an ideal, 288\n\nEvolution, organic, 85\n\nEvolutionary socialists, 102\n\n---- sociology, 94\n\n\n_Fabian Essays_, 58\n\nFamily life, 135, 140, 141\n\nFighting instinct, the, 121\n\nFrance, state monopolies in, 80\n\nFrederick the Great, 99\n\nFrench revolution, 206\n\n\nGeorge, Henry, 210, 211\n\n\"Gospel for To-day, The,\" 151, 153, 157, 159\n\n_Great Eastern, The,_ 264\n\nGreed, 125\n\nGronluend, a disciple of Marx, 18\n\n\nHappiness, an equation between desire and attainment, 273\n\nHarrison, Frederic, the English prophet of Positivism, 118;\n  on the soldier's willing service, 120\n\nHelots in Sparta, 59\n\nHeroism, socialists' view of, 118, 122\n\nHillquit, Mr., the American socialist, 42, 43, 50;\n  and \"common manual labour,\" 48, 50;\n  his irrelevancies, 50;\n  his argument, 51, 53;\n  verbal jugglery of, 53\n\n\nIdeal equilibrium, an, 288\n\nIncome, of labour, 197;\n  earned and unearned, 226\n\nIndividual motive and democracy, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144,\n  146, 148\n\nIndustrial effort, its progress depends on thought and the advance of\n  knowledge, 32;\n  productivity of, 157\n\n---- productivity, 195\n\n---- towns, present structure of great, 294\n\nIndustry, state-directed, 81;\n  the iron, 82\n\nIntellect, inequalities of the human, 102, 107\n\nInterest, and abstract justice, 204, 206, 208, 210, 212, 214, 216, 218,\n  220, 222, 224, 226;\n  socialistic attack on, 227, 228, 230, 232, 234, 236, 238, 240, 242,\n  244, 246, 248, 250, 252\n\nInvention, Christian socialists on the faculty of, 159\n\nInventors, 160-62\n\nIron industry, the, 82\n\n\nJesuit Fathers in Uruguay, 193\n\nJust reward of labour, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, 186, 188, 190, 192, 194,\n  196, 198, 200, 202\n\nJustice, interest and abstract, 204, 206, 208, 210, 212, 214, 216, 218,\n  220, 222, 224, 226\n\n\nKidd, on rival and independent claims, 93;\n  his argument, 103, 106\n\n\nLabour, as a wealth-producer, 11, 21, 42;\n  definition of ability and, 19;\n  two distinguishable kinds of, 23;\n  a productive agent, 25, 199;\n  directive, 31, 71, 75, 77, 78;\n  emancipation of, 47;\n  the Marxian doctrine of the all-productivity of, 47;\n  by itself, impotent to produce the wealth of modern nations, 54;\n  and the socialistic promise, 127;\n  as estimated by its actual products--the just reward of, 176, 178,\n  180, 182, 184, 186, 188, 190, 192, 194, 196, 198, 200, 202;\n  income of, 197, 295;\n  as opposed to ability, 291\n\nLabour-certificates, 12\n\nLabourer, the ordinary manual, 66, 67, 174\n\nLaplace, 91\n\nLegislation, 134, 135;\n  and the Government's will, 136\n\nLombe, the great silk-factory erected at Derby by, 197\n\nL.C.C. steamboats, 73\n\n\nMacaulay, _Essay on Dryden_, 92;\n  on the absurdity of confounding speculative sociology with practical,\n  101\n\nMachine-capital, 219\n\nMachinery, a development of capitalism, 2;\n  Marx on, 27;\n  embodies labour directed in a new way, 38;\n  the question of, 88\n\nMajority, will of the, 129, 139, 140;\n  powers of the \"sovereign,\" 137\n\nMarx, Karl, his formula, 7;\n  his treatise on capital, 8;\n  his theory summarised, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20;\n  his doctrine of scientific socialism, 11, 18;\n  his falsified prophecies, 17;\n  errors of, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40;\n  on machinery, 27;\n  repudiated by modern socialists, 41, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56,\n  58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68\n\nMelba, 116, 144\n\nMilitary, distinct from industrial, activity, 121\n\nMill, J.S., 2, 32; _Political Economy_, 20, 21, 179;\n  on nature in agriculture, 180, 181\n\nModern socialists, their repudiation of Marx, _q.v._;\n  and the question of motive, 90, 111, 113;\n  their assertion, 115\n\nMonastic orders, 117\n\nMonopolists, 93\n\nMonopoly, modern capital is, 38;\n  of business-ability, 89, 93\n\nMotive, ability, and individual, 110\n\n---- individual, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148\n\n---- practical as distinct from moral, 287\n\n---- socialists and, 90, 111, 113\n\nMotives, discussion of various, 113-5\n\nMulti-millionaires, 131-3;\n  a suggested limit, 138\n\n\nNapoleon III., 99\n\n_North American Review,_ 130\n\n\nOpportunity, equality of, 253, 254, 256, 258, 260, 262, 264, 266, 268,\n  270, 272, 274, 276\n\nOrders, monastic, 117\n\nOrganic evolution, 185\n\n---- nature, products of, 210\n\nOwen, Robert, 170;\n  his views on socialism, 7\n\n\nPeasant proprietors, 20, 57\n\nPenny post, 79\n\nPlane, Bastiat's, 213, 214\n\nPositivism, Frederic Harrison, the English prophet of, 118-20\n\nPost Office, British, 79\n\nPostal employe, the, 260, 261\n\nPress, a state, 85\n\nProblems of practical life, 95\n\nProduct, correspondence between productive effort and, 207\n\nProduction, unequal powers of, 142, 254;\n  labour, capital, and law the only factors in, 191\n\nProductive agent, labour as a, 25, 199\n\n---- effort, the astounding advances of the efficiency of, 26\n\nProductivity, industrial, 195\n\n\nRent, of business-ability, the, 191, 194;\n  and agriculture, 192\n\nReward of labour, as estimated by its actual products, just, 176, 178,\n  180, 182, 184, 186, 188, 190, 192, 194, 196, 198, 200, 202\n\nRicardo, 2, 12, 32, 92\n\nRoosevelt, President, 169\n\nRossi, Govanni, the Italian socialist, his failure to found a\n  socialistic colony in Brazil, 141\n\nRousseau, his theory of the social contract, 283, 284\n\nRuskin, John, 23;\n  his scheme of political economy, 118\n\n\nSentimental thinkers, 123\n\nShakespeare, 92, 96\n\nShaw, Bernard, 43, 208, 209;\n  _Man and Superman_, 215, 216, 222\n\nSlave, contrasted with wage-paid labourer, 59\n\nSlavery, 57\n\nSmith, Adam, _Wealth of Nations_, 25, 26, 36\n\nSocial Democratic Federation, its campaign and its catechism, 45\n\nSocial policy of the future, 278, 280, 282, 284, 286, 288, 290, 292, 294\n\nSocialism, Christian. _See_ Christian socialism\n\n---- historical beginning of, 1, _et seq._;\n  two ideas of, 1;\n  and capitalism, 3;\n  a theory, 5;\n  regarded as a practical force, 8;\n  basic doctrine of so-called scientific, 18;\n  a fallacy, 49, 167;\n  proximate difficulties of, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88;\n  its ultimate difficulty, 89, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106,\n  108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, 128;\n  \"the Great Man theory,\" 91\n\nSocialistic attack on interest, and the nature of its error, 227, 228,\n  230, 232, 234, 236, 238, 240, 242, 244, 246, 248, 250, 252\n\nSocialistic temperament, debilitates the faculties, 169\n\n---- theory of society, a, 56, 58\n\nSocialists, on heroism, 118, 122;\n  their two main doctrines, moral and economic, 165;\n  their false and true theories of production, 166;\n  their fallacy, 167\n\n---- evolutionary, 102\n\nSociety, two contrasted groups of, 15\n\nSociology, scientific, 111\n\n---- speculative, 109\n\nSpencer, Herbert, 106;\n  causal importance of the great man, 89-101;\n  on modern production, 97, 98;\n  _Study of Sociology_, 99;\n  on the invention of the _Times_ printing-press, 100;\n  _Social Statics_, _ibid._;\n  criticised by Author's _Aristocracy and Evolution_, 101\n\nState officials, 69\n\nSteel and oil, 153, 158, 159, 160, 162\n\nSupply and demand, 143\n\n\nUtopia, Bellamy's description of a socialistic, 92\n\n\nValue, surplus, 13\n\n\nWage-capital, 36, 37, 39, 41, 57, 58, 264;\n  an implement of direction, 70;\n  its waste brings about its own remedy, 71\n\nWagedom, socialists and, 59, 60\n\nWage-fund, division of total, 201\n\nWage-system, alternatives to, 57, 60;\n  an escape from, 59\n\nWatt, 221\n\nWealth, socialists' conception of, 145;\n  a form of power, 146;\n  superfluous, 155;\n  produced by two functionally different classes, 176\n\n---- of modern nations, \"common manual labour\" impotent to produce the,\n  48, 50, 54\n\nWealth-producer, the greed of the, 125\n\nWealth-producing power, labour's, 11, 21, 42\n\nWebb, Sidney, 43, 58-60, 89, 90, 119, 191, 194, 197;\n  his argument, 107, 108\n\nWilshire, Gayford, his leaflet, 47, 143, 257\n\n\n\n\nPrinted by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury.","title":"A Critical Examination of Socialism","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":80527}