{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_53516/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_53516","id":"gutenberg_53516","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53516","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Sociology","Socialism"],"text":"Transcriber Note:\n\n Obvious typos and punctuation errors corrected.\n Italic text is represented by underscores surrounding the _italic\n   text_.\n Small capitals have been converted to ALL CAPS.\n A small decoration on the title page is represented by [Decoration].\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                  THIS\n                           MISERY _of_ BOOTS\n\n                                   BY\n                              H. G. WELLS\n\n             _Author of \u201cSocialism and the Family,\u201d \u201cIn the\n                     Days of the Comet,\u201d \u201cA Modern\n                             Utopia,\u201d etc._\n\n                              [Decoration]\n\n\n                                 BOSTON\n                        THE BALL PUBLISHING CO.\n                                  1908\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                             THIS MISERY OF\n                                 BOOTS\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n\n                 THE WORLD AS BOOTS AND SUPERSTRUCTURE\n\n\n\u201cIt does not do,\u201d said a friend of mine, \u201cto think about boots.\u201d For my\nown part, I have always been particularly inclined to look at boots, and\nthink about them. I have an odd idea that most general questions can be\nexpressed in terms of foot-wear\u2014which is perhaps why cobblers are often\nsuch philosophical men. Accident it may be, gave me this persuasion. A\nvery considerable part of my childhood was spent in an underground\nkitchen; the window opened upon a bricked-in space, surmounted by a\ngrating before my father\u2019s shop window. So that, when I looked out of\nthe window, instead of seeing\u2014as children of a higher upbringing would\ndo\u2014the heads and bodies of people, I saw their under side. I got\nacquainted indeed with all sorts of social types as boots simply,\nindeed, as the soles of boots; and only subsequently, and with care,\nhave I fitted heads, bodies, and legs to these pediments.\n\nThere would come boots and shoes (no doubt holding people) to stare at\nthe shop, finicking, neat little women\u2019s boots, good sorts and bad\nsorts, fresh and new, worn crooked in the tread, patched or needing\npatching; men\u2019s boots, clumsy and fine, rubber shoes, tennis shoes,\ngoloshes. Brown shoes I never beheld\u2014it was before that time; but I have\nseen pattens. Boots used to come and commune at the window, duets that\nmarked their emotional development by a restlessness or a kick.... But\nanyhow, that explains my preoccupation with boots.\n\nBut my friend did not think it _did_, to think about boots.\n\nMy friend was a realistic novelist, and a man from whom hope had\ndeparted. I cannot tell you how hope had gone out of his life; some\nsubtle disease of the soul had robbed him at last of any enterprise, or\nbelief in coming things; and he was trying to live the few declining\nyears that lay before him in a sort of bookish comfort, among\nsurroundings that seemed peaceful and beautiful, by not thinking of\nthings that were painful and cruel. And we met a tramp who limped along\nthe lane.\n\n\u201cChafed heel,\u201d I said, when we had parted from him again; \u201cand on these\npebbly byways no man goes barefooted.\u201d My friend winced; and a little\nsilence came between us. We were both recalling things; and then for a\ntime, when we began to talk again, until he would have no more of it, we\nrehearsed the miseries of boots.\n\nWe agreed that to a very great majority of people in this country boots\nare constantly a source of distress, giving pain and discomfort, causing\ntrouble, causing anxiety. We tried to present the thing in a concrete\nform to our own minds by hazardous statistical inventions. \u201cAt the\npresent moment,\u201d said I, \u201cone person in ten in these islands is in\ndiscomfort through boots.\u201d\n\nMy friend thought it was nearer one in five.\n\n\u201cIn the life of a poor man or a poor man\u2019s wife, and still more in the\nlives of their children, this misery of the boot occurs and recurs\u2014every\nyear so many days.\u201d\n\nWe made a sort of classification of these troubles.\n\nThere is the TROUBLE OF THE NEW BOOT.\n\n(i) They are made of some bad, unventilated material; and \u201cdraw the\nfeet,\u201d as people say.\n\n(ii) They do not fit exactly. Most people have to buy ready-made boots;\nthey cannot afford others, and, in the submissive philosophy of poverty,\nthey wear them to \u201cget used\u201d to them. This gives you the little-toe\npinch, the big-toe pinch, the squeeze and swelling across the foot; and,\nas a sort of chronic development of these pressures, come corns and all\nthe misery of corns. Children\u2019s feet get distorted for good by this\nmethod of fitting the human being to the thing; and a vast number of\npeople in the world are, as a consequence of this, ashamed to appear\nbarefooted. (I used to press people who came to see me in warm pleasant\nweather to play Badminton barefooted on the grass\u2014a delightful thing to\ndo\u2014until I found out that many were embarrassed at the thought of\ndisplaying twisted toes and corns, and such-like disfigurements.)\n\n(iii) The third trouble of new boots is this: they are unseasoned and in\nbad condition, and so they squeak and make themselves an insulting\ncommentary on one\u2019s ways.\n\nBut these are but trifling troubles to what arises as the boots get into\nwear. Then it is the pinch comes in earnest. Of these TROUBLES OF THE\nWORN BOOT, I and my friend, before he desisted, reckoned up three\nprincipal classes.\n\n(i) There are the various sorts of chafe. Worst of the chafes is\ncertainly the heel chafe, when something goes wrong with the upright\nsupport at the heel. This, as a boy, I have had to endure for days\ntogether; because there were no other boots for me. Then there is the\nchafe that comes when that inner lining of the boot rucks up\u2014very like\nthe chafe it is that poor people are always getting from over-darned and\nhastily-darned socks. And then there is the chafe that comes from\nready-made boots one has got a trifle too large or long, in order to\navoid the pinch and corns. After a little while, there comes a\ntransverse crease across the loose-fitting forepart; and, when the boot\nstiffens from wet or any cause, it chafes across the base of the toes.\nThey have you all ways. And I have a very lively recollection too of the\nchafe of the knots one made to mend broken laces\u2014one cannot be always\nbuying new laces, and the knots used to work inward. And then the chafe\nof the crumpled tongue.\n\n(ii) Then there are the miseries that come from the wear of the sole.\nThere is the rick of ankle because the heel has gone over, and the sense\nof insecurity; and there is the miserable sense of not looking well from\nbehind that many people must feel. It is almost always painful to me to\nwalk behind girls who work out, and go to and fro, consuming much\nfoot-wear, for this very reason, that their heels seem always to wear\naskew. Girls ought always to be so beautiful, most girls could be so\nbeautiful, that to see their poor feet askew, the grace of their walk\ngone, a sort of spinal curvature induced, makes me wretched, and angry\nwith a world that treats them so. And then there is the working through\nof nails, nails in the shoe. One limps on manfully in the hope presently\nof a quiet moment and a quiet corner in which one may hammer the thing\ndown again. Thirdly, under this heading I recall the flapping sole. My\nboots always came to that stage at last; I wore the toes out first, and\nthen the sole split from before backwards. As one walked it began\ncatching the ground. One made fantastic paces to prevent it happening;\none was dreadfully ashamed. At last one was forced to sit by the wayside\nfrankly, and cut the flap away.\n\n(iii) Our third class of miseries we made of splitting and leaks. These\nare for the most part mental miseries, the feeling of shabbiness as one\nsees the ugly yawn, for example, between toe cap and the main upper of\nthe boot; but they involve also chills, colds, and a long string of\ndisagreeable consequences. And we spoke too of the misery of sitting\ndown to work (as multitudes of London school children do every wet\nmorning) in boots with soles worn thin or into actual holes, that have\ngot wet and chilling on the way to the work-place....\n\nFrom these instances my mind ran on to others. I made a discovery. I had\nalways despised the common run of poor Londoners for not spending their\nSundays and holidays in sturdy walks, the very best of exercise. I had\nallowed myself to say when I found myself one summer day at Margate:\n\u201cWhat a soft lot all these young people must be who loaf about the\nband-stand here, when they might be tramping over the Kentish hills\ninland!\u201d But now I repented me of that. Long tramps indeed! Their boots\nwould have hurt them. Their boots would not stand it. I saw it all.\n\nAnd now my discourse was fairly under way. \u201c_Ex pede Herculem_,\u201d I said;\n\u201cthese miseries of boots are no more than a sample. The clothes people\nwear are no better than their boots; and the houses they live in far\nworse. And think of the shoddy garment of ideas and misconceptions and\npartial statements into which their poor minds have been jammed by way\nof education! Think of the way _that_ pinches and chafes them! If one\nexpanded the miseries of these things.... Think, for example, of the\nresults of the poor, bad, unwise food, of badly-managed eyes and ears\nand teeth! Think of the quantity of toothache.\u201d\n\n\u201cI tell you, it does not _do_ to think of such things!\u201d cried my friend,\nin a sort of anguish; and would have no more of it at any price....\n\nAnd yet in his time he had written books full of these very matters,\nbefore despair overtook him.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n                   PEOPLE WHOSE BOOTS DON\u2019T HURT THEM\n\n\nWell, I did not talk merely to torment him; nor have I written this\nmerely to torment you. You see I have a persistent persuasion that all\nthese miseries are preventable miseries, which it lies in the power of\nmen to cure.\n\nEverybody does not suffer misery from boots.\n\nOne person I know, another friend of mine, who can testify to that; who\nhas tasted all the miseries of boots, and who now goes about the world\nfree of them, but not altogether forgetful of them. A stroke of luck,\naided perhaps by a certain alacrity on his own part, lifted him out of\nthe class in which one buys one\u2019s boots and clothes out of what is left\nover from a pound a week, into the class in which one spends seventy or\neighty pounds a year on clothing. Sometimes he buys shoes and boots at\nvery good shops; sometimes he has them made for him; he has them stored\nin a proper cupboard, and great care is taken of them; and so his boots\nand shoes and slippers never chafe, never pinch, never squeak, never\nhurt nor worry him, never bother him; and, when he sticks out his toes\nbefore the fire, they do not remind him that he is a shabby and\ncontemptible wretch, living meanly on the dust heaps of the world. You\nmight think from this he had every reason to congratulate himself and be\nhappy, seeing that he has had good follow after evil; but, such is the\noddness of the human heart, he isn\u2019t contented at all. The thought of\nthe multitudes so much worse off than himself in this matter of\nfoot-wear, gives him no sort of satisfaction. Their boots pinch _him_\nvicariously. The black rage with the scheme of things that once he felt\nthrough suffering in his own person in the days when he limped shabbily\nthrough gaily busy, fashionable London streets, in split boots that\nchafed, he feels now just as badly as he goes about the world very\ncomfortably himself, but among people whom he knows with a pitiless\nclearness to be almost intolerably uncomfortable. He has no optimistic\nillusion that things are all right with them. Stupid people who have\nalways been well off, who have always had boots that fit, may think\nthat; but not so, he. In one respect the thought of boots makes him even\nmore viciously angry now, than it used to do. In the old days he was\nsavage with his luck, but hopelessly savage; he thought that bad boots,\nugly uncomfortable clothes, rotten houses, were in the very nature of\nthings. Now, when he sees a child sniffing and blubbering and halting\nupon the pavement, or an old country-woman going painfully along a lane,\nhe no longer recognises the Pinch of Destiny. His rage is lit by the\nthought, that there are fools in this world who ought to have foreseen\nand prevented this. He no longer curses fate, but the dulness of\nstatesmen and powerful responsible people who have neither the heart,\nnor courage, nor capacity, to change the state of mismanagement that\ngives us these things.\n\nNow do not think I am dwelling unduly upon my second friend\u2019s good\nfortune, when I tell you that once he was constantly getting pain and\nmiserable states of mind, colds for example, from the badness of his\nclothing, shame from being shabby, pain from the neglected state of his\nteeth, from the indigestion of unsuitable food eaten at unsuitable\nhours, from the insanitary ugly house in which he lived and the bad air\nof that part of London, from things indeed quite beyond the unaided\npower of a poor over-worked man to remedy. And now all these\ndisagreeable things have gone out of his life; he has consulted dentists\nand physicians, he has hardly any dull days from colds, no pain from\ntoothache at all, no gloom of indigestion....\n\nI will not go on with the tale of good fortune of this lucky person. My\npurpose is served if I have shown that this misery of boots is not an\nunavoidable curse upon mankind. If one man can evade it, others can. By\ngood management it may be altogether escaped. If you, or what is more\nimportant to most human beings, if any people dear to you, suffer from\npainful or disfiguring boots or shoes, and you can do no better for\nthem, it is simply because you are getting the worse side of an\nill-managed world. It is not the universal lot.\n\nAnd what I say of boots is true of all the other minor things of life.\nIf your wife catches a bad cold because her boots are too thin for the\ntime of the year, or dislikes going out because she cuts a shabby ugly\nfigure, if your children look painfully nasty because their faces are\nswollen with toothache, or because their clothes are dirty, old, and\nill-fitting, if you are all dull and disposed to be cross with one\nanother for want of decent amusement and change of air\u2014don\u2019t submit,\ndon\u2019t be humbugged for a moment into believing that this is the dingy\nlot of all mankind. Those people you love are living in a badly-managed\nworld and on the wrong side of it; and such wretchednesses are the daily\ndemonstration of that.\n\nDon\u2019t say for a moment: \u201cSuch is life.\u201d Don\u2019t think their miseries are\npart of some primordial curse there is no escaping. The disproof of that\nis for any one to see. There are people, people no more deserving than\nothers, who suffer from none of these things. You may feel you merit no\nbetter than to live so poorly and badly that your boots are always\nhurting you; but do the little children, the girls, the mass of decent\nhard-up people, deserve no better fate?\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n                     AT THIS POINT A DISPUTE ARISES\n\n\nNow let us imagine some one who will dispute what I am saying. I do not\nsuppose any one will dispute my argument that a large part of the misery\nof civilised life\u2014I do not say \u201call\u201d but only a \u201clarge part\u201d\u2014arises out\nof the network of squalid insufficiencies of which I have taken this\nmisery of boots as the simplest example. But I do believe quite a lot of\npeople will be prepared to deny that such miseries can be avoided. They\nwill say that every one cannot have the best of things, that of all\nsorts of good things, including good leather and cobbling, there is not\nenough to go round, that lower-class people ought not to mind being\nshabby and uncomfortable, that they ought to be very glad to be able to\nlive at all, considering what they are, and that it is no good stirring\nup discontent about things that cannot be altered or improved.\n\nSuch arguments are not to be swept aside with a wave of the hand. It is\nperfectly true that every one cannot have the best of things; and it is\nin the nature of things that some boots should be better and some worse.\nTo some people, either by sheer good luck, or through the strength of\ntheir determination to have them, the exquisitely good boots, those of\nthe finest leather and the most artistic cut, will fall. I have never\ndenied that. Nobody dreams of a time when every one will have exactly as\ngood boots as every one else; I am not preaching any such childish and\nimpossible equality. But it is a long way from recognising that there\nmust be a certain picturesque and interesting variety in this matter of\nfoot-wear, to the admission that a large majority of people can never\nhope for more than to be shod in a manner that is frequently painful,\nuncomfortable, unhealthy, or unsightly. That admission I absolutely\nrefuse to make. There is enough good leather in the world to make good\nsightly boots and shoes for all who need them, enough men at leisure and\nenough power and machinery to do all the work required, enough\nunemployed intelligence to organise the shoemaking and shoe distribution\nfor everybody. What stands in the way?\n\nLet us put that question in a rather different form. Here on the one\nhand\u2014you can see for yourself in any unfashionable part of Great\nBritain\u2014are people badly, uncomfortably, painfully shod, in old boots,\nrotten boots, sham boots; and on the other great stretches of land in\nthe world, with unlimited possibilities of cattle and leather and great\nnumbers of people, who, either through wealth or trade disorder, are\ndoing no work. And our question is: \u201cWhy cannot the latter set to work\nand make and distribute boots?\u201d\n\nImagine yourself trying to organise something of this kind of Free\nBooting expedition; and consider the difficulties you would meet with.\nYou would begin by looking for a lot of leather. Imagine yourself\nsetting off to South America, for example, to get leather; beginning at\nthe very beginning by setting to work to kill and flay a herd of cattle.\nYou find at once you are interrupted. Along comes your first obstacle in\nthe shape of a man who tells you the cattle and the leather belong to\nhim. You explain that the leather is wanted for people who have no\ndecent boots in England. He says he does not care a rap what you want it\nfor; before you may take it from him you have to buy him off; it is his\nprivate property, this leather, and the herd and the land over which the\nherd ranges. You ask him how much he wants for his leather; and he tells\nyou frankly, just as much as he can induce you to give.\n\nIf he chanced to be a person of exceptional sweetness of disposition,\nyou might perhaps argue with him. You might point out to him that this\nproject of giving people splendid boots was a fine one that would put an\nend to much human misery. He might even sympathise with your generous\nenthusiasm; but you would, I think, find him adamantine in his resolve\nto get just as much out of you for his leather as you could with the\nutmost effort pay.\n\nSuppose now you said to him: \u201cBut how did you come by this land and\nthese herds, so that you can stand between them and the people who have\nneed of them, exacting this profit?\u201d He would probably either embark\nupon a long rigmarole, or, what is much more probable, lose his temper\nand decline to argue. Pursuing your doubt as to the rightfulness of his\nproperty in these things, you might admit he deserved a certain\nreasonable fee for the rough care he had taken of the land and herds.\nBut cattle breeders are a rude, violent race; and it is doubtful if you\nwould get far beyond your proposition of a reasonable fee. You would in\nfact have to buy off this owner of the leather at a good thumping\nprice\u2014he exacting just as much as he could get from you\u2014if you wanted to\ngo on with your project.\n\nWell, then you would have to get your leather here; and, to do that, you\nwould have to bring it by railway and ship to this country. And here\nagain you would find people without any desire or intention of helping\nyour project, standing in your course, resolved to make every possible\npenny out of you on your way to provide sound boots for every one. You\nwould find the railway was private property, and had an owner or owners;\nyou would find the ship was private property, with an owner or owners;\nand that none of these would be satisfied for a moment with a mere fee\nadequate to their services. They too would be resolved to make every\npenny of profit out of you. If you made inquiries about the matter, you\nwould probably find the real owners of railway and ship were companies\nof shareholders, and that the profit squeezed out of your poor people\u2019s\nboots at this stage went to fill the pockets of old ladies at Torquay,\nspendthrifts in Paris, well-booted gentlemen in London clubs, all sorts\nof glossy people....\n\nWell, you get the leather to England at last; and now you want to make\nit into boots. You take it to a centre of population, invite workers to\ncome to you, erect sheds and machinery upon a vacant piece of ground,\nand start off in a sort of fury of generous industry, boot-making.... Do\nyou? There comes along an owner for that vacant piece of ground,\ndeclares it is his property, demands an enormous sum for rent. And your\nworkers all round you, you find, cannot get house room until they too\nhave paid rent\u2014every inch of the country is somebody\u2019s property, and a\nman may not shut his eyes for an hour without the consent of some owner\nor other. And the food your shoemakers eat, the clothes they wear, have\nall paid tribute and profit to land-owners, cart-owners, house-owners,\nendless tribute over and over and above the fair pay for work that has\nbeen done upon them....\n\nSo one might go on. But you begin to see now one set of reasons at least\nwhy every one has not good comfortable boots. There could be plenty of\nleather; and there is certainly plenty of labour and quite enough\nintelligence in the world to manage that and a thousand other desirable\nthings. But this institution of Private Property in land and naturally\nproduced things, these obstructive claims that prevent you using ground,\nor moving material, and that have to be bought out at exorbitant prices,\nstand in the way. All these owners hang like parasites upon your\nenterprise at its every stage; and, by the time you get your sound boots\nwell made in England, you will find them costing about a pound a\npair\u2014high out of the reach of the general mass of people. And you will\nperhaps not think me fanciful and extravagant when I confess that when I\nrealise this, and look at poor people\u2019s boots in the street, and see\nthem cracked and misshapen and altogether nasty, I seem to see also a\nlot of little phantom land-owners, cattle-owners, house-owners, owners\nof all sorts, swarming over their pinched and weary feet like leeches,\ntaking much and giving nothing, and being the real cause of all such\nmiseries.\n\nNow is this a necessary and unavoidable thing?\u2014that is our question. Is\nthere no other way of managing things than to let these property-owners\nexact their claims, and squeeze comfort, pride, happiness, out of the\nlives of the common run of people? Because, of course, it is not only\nthe boots they squeeze into meanness and badness. It is the claim and\nprofit of the land-owner and house-owner that make our houses so ugly,\nshabby, and dear, that make our roadways and railways so crowded and\ninconvenient, that sweat our schools, our clothing, our food\u2014boots we\ntook merely by way of one example of a universal trouble.\n\nWell, there are a number of people who say there is a better way and\nthat the world could be made infinitely better in all these matters,\nmade happier and better than it ever has been in these respects, by\nrefusing to have private property in all these universally necessary\nthings. They say that it is possible to have the land administered, and\nsuch common and needful things as leather produced, and boots\nmanufactured, and no end of other such generally necessary services\ncarried on, not for the private profit of individuals, but for the good\nof all. They propose that the State should take away the land, and the\nrailways, and shipping, and many great organised enterprises from their\nowners, who use them simply to squeeze the means for a wasteful private\nexpenditure out of the common mass of men, and should administer all\nthese things, generously and boldly, not for profit, but for service. It\nis this idea of extracting _profit_ they hold which is the very root of\nthe evil. These are the Socialists; and they are the only people who do\nhold out any hope of far-reaching change that will alter the present\ndingy state of affairs, of which this painful wretchedness of boots is\nonly one typical symbol.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n\n                         IS SOCIALISM POSSIBLE?\n\n\nI will not pretend to be impartial in this matter, and to discuss as\nthough I had an undecided mind, whether the world would be better if we\ncould abolish private property in land and in many things of general\nutility; because I have no doubt left in the matter. I believe that\nprivate property in these things is no more necessary and unavoidable\nthan private property in our fellow-creatures, or private property in\nbridges and roads. The idea that anything and everything may be claimed\nas private property belongs to the dark ages of the world; and it is not\nonly a monstrous injustice, but a still more monstrous inconvenience.\nSuppose we still admitted private property in high roads, and let every\nman who had a scrap of high road haggle a bargain with us before we\ncould drive by in a cab! You say life would be unendurable. But indeed\nit amounts to something a little like that if we use a railway now; and\nit is quite like that if one wants a spot of ground somewhere upon which\none may live. I see no more difficulty in managing land, factories, and\nthe like, publicly for the general good, than there is in managing roads\nand bridges, and the post office and the police. So far I see no\nimpossibility whatever in Socialism. To abolish private property in\nthese things would be to abolish all that swarm of parasites, whose\ngreed for profit and dividend hampers and makes a thousand useful and\ndelightful enterprises costly or hopeless. It would abolish them; but is\nthat any objection whatever?\n\nAnd as for taking such property from the owners; why shouldn\u2019t we? The\nworld has not only in the past taken slaves from their owners, with no\ncompensation or with a meagre compensation; but in the history of\nmankind, dark as it is, there are innumerable cases of slave-owners\nresigning their inhuman rights. You may say that to take away property\nfrom people is unjust and robbery; but is that really so? Suppose you\nfound a number of children in a nursery all very dull and unhappy\nbecause one of them, who had been badly spoilt, had got all the toys\ntogether and claimed them all, and refused to let the others have any.\nWould you not dispossess the child, however honest its illusion that it\nwas right to be greedy? That is practically the position of the\nproperty-owner to-day. You may say, if you choose, that property-owners,\nland-owners for example, must be bought out and not robbed; but since\ngetting the money to buy them out involves taxing the property of some\none else, who may possibly have a better claim to it than the land-owner\nto his, I don\u2019t quite see where the honesty of that course comes in. You\ncan only give property for property in buying and selling; and if\nprivate property is not robbery, then not only Socialism but ordinary\ntaxation must be. But if taxation is a justifiable proceeding, if you\ncan tax me (as I am taxed) for public services, a shilling and more out\nof every twenty shillings I earn, then I do not see why you should not\nput a tax upon the land-owner if you want to do so, of a half or two\nthirds or all his land, or upon the railway share-holder of ten or\nfifteen or twenty shillings in the pound on his shares. In every change\nsome one has to bear the brunt; every improvement in machinery and\nindustrial organisation deprives some poor people of an income; and I do\nnot see why we should be so extraordinarily tender to the rich, to those\nwho have been unproductive all their lives, when they stand in the way\nof the general happiness. And though I deny the right to compensation I\ndo not deny its probable advisability. So far as the question of method\ngoes it is quite conceivable that we may partially compensate the\nproperty owners and make all sorts of mitigating arrangements to avoid\ncruelty to them in our attempt to end the wider cruelties of to-day.\n\nBut, apart from the justice of the case, many people seem to regard\nSocialism as a hopeless dream, because, as they put it, \u201cit is against\nhuman nature.\u201d Every one with any scrap of property in land, or shares,\nor what not, they tell us, will be bitterly opposed to the coming of\nSocialism; and, as such people have all the leisure and influence in the\nworld, and as all able and energetic people tend naturally to join that\nclass, there never can be any effectual force to bring Socialism about.\nBut that seems to me to confess a very base estimate of human nature.\nThere are, no doubt, a number of dull, base, rich people who hate and\ndread Socialism for purely selfish reasons; but it is quite possible to\nbe a property owner and yet be anxious to see Socialism come to its own.\n\nFor example, the man whose private affairs I know best in the world, the\nsecond friend I named, the owner of all those comfortable boots, gives\ntime and energy and money to further this hope of Socialism, although he\npays income tax on twelve hundred a year, and has shares and property to\nthe value of some thousands of pounds. And that he does out of no\ninstinct of sacrifice. He believes he would be happier and more\ncomfortable in a Socialistic state of affairs, when it would not be\nnecessary for him to hold on to that life-belt of invested property. He\nfinds it\u2014and quite a lot of well-off people are quite of his way of\nthinking\u2014a constant flaw upon a life of comfort and pleasant interests\nto see so many people, who might be his agreeable friends and\nassociates, detestably under-educated, detestably housed, in the most\ndetestable clothes and boots, and so detestably broken in spirit that\nthey will not treat him as an equal. It makes him feel he is like that\nspoilt child in the nursery; he feels ashamed and contemptible; and,\nsince individual charity only seems in the long run to make matters\nworse, he is ready to give a great deal of his life, and lose his entire\nlittle heap of possessions if need be, very gladly lose it, to change\nthe present order of things in a comprehensive manner.\n\nI am quite convinced that there are numbers of much richer and more\ninfluential people who are of his way of thinking. Much more likely to\nobstruct the way to Socialism is the ignorance, the want of courage, the\nstupid want of imagination of the very poor, too shy and timid and\nclumsy to face any change they can evade! But, even with them, popular\neducation is doing its work; and I do not fear but that in the next\ngeneration we shall find Socialists even in the slums. The unimaginative\nperson who owns some little bit of property, an acre or so of freehold\nland, or a hundred pounds in the savings bank, will no doubt be the most\ntenacious passive resister to Socialistic ideas; and such, I fear, we\nmust reckon, together with the insensitive rich, as our irreconcilable\nenemies, as irremovable pillars of the present order. The mean and timid\nelements in \u201chuman nature\u201d are, and will be, I admit, against Socialism;\nbut they are not all \u201chuman nature,\u201d not half human nature. And when, in\nthe whole history of the world, have meanness and timidity won a\nstruggle? It is passion, it is enthusiasm, and indignation that mould\nthe world to their will\u2014and I cannot see how any one can go into the\nback streets of London, or any large British town, and not be filled up\nwith shame, and passionate resolve to end so grubby and mean a state of\naffairs as is displayed there.\n\nI don\u2019t think the \u201chuman nature\u201d argument against the possibility of\nSocialism will hold water.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n\n                       SOCIALISM MEANS REVOLUTION\n\n\nLet us be clear about one thing: that Socialism means revolution, that\nit means a change in the every-day texture of life. It may be a very\ngradual change, but it will be a very complete one. You cannot change\nthe world, and at the same time not change the world. You will find\nSocialists about, or at any rate men calling themselves Socialists, who\nwill pretend that this is not so, who will assure you that some odd\nlittle jobbing about municipal gas and water is Socialism, and\nback-stairs intervention between Conservative and Liberal the way to the\nmillennium. You might as well call a gas jet in the lobby of a\nmeeting-house, the glory of God in Heaven!\n\nSocialism aims to change, not only the boots on people\u2019s feet, but the\nclothes they wear, the houses they inhabit, the work they do, the\neducation they get, their places, their honours, and all their\npossessions. Socialism aims to make a new world out of the old. It can\nonly be attained by the intelligent, outspoken, courageous resolve of a\ngreat multitude of men and women. You must get absolutely clear in your\nmind that Socialism means a complete change, a break with history, with\nmuch that is picturesque; whole classes will vanish. The world will be\nvastly different, with a different sort of houses, different sorts of\npeople. All the different trades and industries will be changed, the\nmedical profession will be carried on under different conditions,\nengineering, science, the theatrical trade, the clerical trade, schools,\nhotels, almost every trade, will have to undergo as complete an internal\nchange as a caterpillar does when it becomes a moth. If you are afraid\nof so much change as that, it is better you should funk about it now\nthan later. The whole system has to be changed, if we are to get rid of\nthe masses of dull poverty that render our present state detestable to\nany sensitive man or woman. That, and no less, is the aim of all sincere\nSocialists: the establishment of a new and better order of society by\nthe abolition of private property in land, in natural productions, and\nin their exploitation\u2014a change as profound as the abolition of private\nproperty in slaves would have been in ancient Rome or Athens. If you\ndemand less than that, if you are not prepared to struggle for that, you\nare not really a Socialist. If you funk that, then you must make up your\nmind to square your life to a sort of personal and private happiness\nwith things as they are, and decide with my other friend that \u201cit\ndoesn\u2019t do to think about boots.\u201d\n\nIt is well to insist upon one central idea. Socialism is a common-sense,\nmatter-of-fact proposal to change our conventional admission of what is\nor is not property, and to re-arrange the world according to these\nrevised conceptions. A certain number of clever people, dissatisfied\nwith the straightforwardness of this, have set themselves to put it in\nsome brilliant obscure way; they will tell you that Socialism is based\non the philosophy of Hegel, or that it turns on a theory of Rent, or\nthat it is somehow muddled up with a sort of white Bogey called the\nOverman, and all sorts of brilliant, nonsensical, unappetising things.\nThe theory of Socialism, so far as English people are concerned, seems\nto have got up into the clouds, and its practice down into the drains;\nand it is well to warn inquiring men, that neither the epigram above nor\nthe job beneath are more than the accidental accompaniments of\nSocialism. Socialism is a very large, but a plain, honest, and human\nenterprise; its ends are to be obtained neither by wit nor cunning, but\nby outspoken resolve, by the self-abnegation, the enthusiasm, and the\nloyal cooperation of great masses of people.\n\nThe main thing, therefore, is the creation of these great masses of\npeople out of the intellectual confusion and vagueness of the present\ntime. Let me suppose that you find yourself in sympathy with this tract,\nthat you, like my second friend, find the shabby dullness, the positive\nmisery of a large proportion of the population of our world, make life\nunder its present conditions almost intolerable, and that it is in the\ndirection of Socialism that the only hope of a permanent remedy lies.\nWhat are we to do? Obviously to give our best energies to making other\npeople Socialists, to organising ourselves with all other Socialists,\nirrespective of class or the minor details of creed, and to making\nourselves audible, visible, effectual as Socialists, wherever and\nwhenever we can.\n\nWe have to think about Socialism, read about it, discuss it; so that we\nmay be assured and clear and persuasive about it. We have to confess our\nfaith openly and frequently. We must refuse to be called Liberal or\nConservative, Republican or Democrat, or any of those ambiguous things.\nEverywhere we must make or join a Socialist organisation, a club or\nassociation or what not, so that we may \u201ccount.\u201d For us, as for the\nearly Christians, preaching our gospel is the supreme duty. Until\nSocialists can be counted, and counted upon by the million, little will\nbe done. When they are\u2014a new world will be ours.\n\nAbove all, if I may offer advice to a fellow-Socialist, I would say:\nCling to the simple essential idea of Socialism, which is the abolition\nof private property in anything but what a man has earned or made. Do\nnot complicate your cause with elaborations. And keep in your mind, if\nyou can, some sort of talisman to bring you back to that essential\ngospel, out of the confusions and warring suggestions of every-day\ndiscussion.\n\nFor my own part, I have, as I said at the beginning, a prepossession\nwith boots; and my talisman is this:\u2014The figure of a badly fed but\nrather pretty little girl of ten or eleven, dirty, and her hands coarse\nwith rough usage, her poor pretty child\u2019s body in ungainly rags, and, on\nher feet, big broken-down boots that hurt her. And particularly I think\nof her wretched sticks of legs and the limp of her feet; and all those\nphantom owners and profit-takers I spoke of, they are there about her\nmartyrdom, leech-like, clinging to her as she goes....\n\nI want to change everything in the world that made that; and I do not\ngreatly care what has to go in the process. Do you?\n\n                                                           H. G. WELLS\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Here is just a bit of hard fact to carry out what I say. It is a\nquotation from a letter from a workman to my friend Mr. Chiozza Money,\none of the best informed writers upon labour questions in England:\n\n  \u201cI am a railway man, in constant work at 30s. per week. I am the\n  happy, or otherwise, father of six healthy children. Last year I\n  bought twenty pairs of boots. This year, up to date, I have bought\n  ten pairs, costing \u00a32; and yet, at the present time, my wife and\n  five of the children have only one pair each. I have two pairs, both\n  of which let in the water; but I see no prospect at present of\n  getting new ones. I ought to say, of course, that my wife is a\n  thoroughly domesticated woman, and I am one of the most temperate of\n  men. So much so, that if all I spend in luxuries was saved it would\n  not buy a pair of boots once a year. But this is the point I want to\n  mention. During 1903 my wages were 25s. 6d. per week; and I then had\n  the six children. My next-door neighbour was a boot-maker and\n  repairer. He fell out of work, and was out for months. During that\n  time, of course, my children\u2019s boots needed repairing as at other\n  times. I had not the money to pay for them being repaired, so had to\n  do what repairing I could myself. One day I found out that I was\n  repairing boots on one side of the wall, and my neighbour on the\n  other side out of work, and longing to do the work I was compelled\n  to do myself....\u201d\n\nThe wall was a commercial organisation of society based on private\nproperty in land and natural productions. These two men must work for\nthe owners or not at all; they cannot work for one another. Food first,\nthen rent; and boots, if you can, when all the owners are paid.]","title":"This Misery of Boots","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":7162}