{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_58123/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_58123","id":"gutenberg_58123","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58123","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Sociology","Democracy","Social history"],"text":"Produced by MFR, Barry Abrahamsen, and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                  THE\n                               UNFINISHED\n                              PROGRAMME OF\n                               DEMOCRACY\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                        BOOKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR\n\n The Renascence of Faith\n\n The Highroad to Christ\n\n Christ and Ourselves\n\n Personality and Nationality\n\n The Church in the Commonwealth (New Commonwealth Books)\n\n The Red Cap on the Cross\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                 THE UNFINISHED PROGRAMME OF DEMOCRACY\n\n\n                                   BY\n                            RICHARD ROBERTS\n\n\n                    [Illustration: Publisher\u2019s Logo]\n\n\n                               NEW YORK:\n                             B. W. HUEBSCH\n                                 Mcmxx\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                             TO \u201cMINE OWN,\u201d\n\n                           N., P., D., AND G.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\n           CHAPTER                                      PAGE\n                I. THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY                 9\n               II. THE TESTS OF DEMOCRATIC PROGRESS       39\n              III. THE PECUNIARY STANDARD                 64\n               IV. THE REDEMPTION OF WORK                 93\n                V. THE ACHIEVEMENT OF LIBERTY            131\n               VI. THE PRACTICE OF FELLOWSHIP            160\n              VII. THE ORGANISATION OF GOVERNMENT        210\n             VIII. A DEMOCRATISED WORLD                  251\n               IX. EDUCATION INTO DEMOCRACY              295\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\n\nTHESE pages embody the attempt of a plain man to thread a way through\nthe social confusion of our time. The book sets out with a profound\nfaith in the validity of the democratic principle; and its object is to\ntrace the path along which the logic of this principle appears to lead.\nNo claim is made to expert knowledge of economics or political science;\nbut the writer has endeavoured to acquaint himself with the recent\nliterature of the subject and to understand the main currents of\nprevailing opinion and feeling.\n\nEvents are moving so rapidly at the present time that certain passages\nbecame impertinent before the book was finished. It is probable that\nbefore it finally leaves the writer\u2019s hands, other passages may suffer\nin the same way. But the main drift of the argument remains unaffected.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nNo attempt has been made in the body of the book to discuss the methods\nby which the social and economic changes which are impending should be\ncarried through. It has been assumed that in the English-speaking world,\nthe traditional respect for constitutional processes would avail to\nprevent resort to what has come to be known as \u201cdirect action.\u201d It is\nnow clear that this assumption was ill-founded and that there is a\nconsiderable movement of opinion toward industrial or \u201cdirect\u201d action.\nThe writer would venture to state his conviction that recourse to this\nmethod would be unspeakably disastrous and would carry with it\nconsequences which its present advocates cannot foresee. It will be no\neasy task to restore the normal constitutional and economic processes\nwhen once they have been scrapped in the pursuit of some immediate\nobject; and it is as sure as anything can very well be that the first\nstep in direct action will have to be followed by others and must end in\na confusion out of which the forty years it took to deliver Israel out\nof Egypt would be all too short to extricate us.\n\nAt the same time it should in fairness be acknowledged that if organised\nlabour decides to use this dubious weapon, it will be under great\nprovocation. The tardiness of governments to fulfil their promises,\ntheir too obvious tenderness toward the vested interests, the blind and\nobstinate bourbonism of the privileged classes over against the new\nproletarian awakening\u2014all these things combine to create a situation\nwhich labour may feel intolerable and may resolve to end by a summary\nprocess. It is indeed only the most resolute and speedy mobilisation of\nall the resources of practical goodwill and reasonableness that can\navert a great catastrophe. Organised labour has proved itself to be\nneither vindictive nor unreasonable when it has been met with fair and\nsquare dealing; and if we are plunged into the chaos of a general strike\nor perhaps worse, the larger responsibility will rest with those who,\npossessed of power and privilege, either could or would not see that the\nclock had moved onward a great space\u2014and, during the years of war, with\ngreat rapidity\u2014and so were unwilling or unready to adapt themselves to\nthe new circumstances.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nOne subject of fundamental importance is touched upon but incidentally\nin these pages\u2014namely, the land. What is said herein concerning property\nin general applies with even more point to land; and the plea which is\nmade for the standardisation of the price of staple commodities clearly\nleads to the public ownership of land, which is indeed on every ground\nthe only reasonable solution of the land question. But adequate\ndiscussion of the matter would carry the argument of the book too far\nafield. In these pages, attention is primarily directed to the situation\nwhich has been created by modern industrialism.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe obligations of the writer to friends and writers are legion; it\nwould be hopeless to enumerate them. Some items of this indebtedness may\nbe inferred from the footnotes. The writer in particular regrets that\nMr. Laski\u2019s _Authority in the Modern State_ did not fall into his hands\nsooner; but he is glad to find himself in substantial agreement with the\nargument and conclusions of that notable work.\n\n  _Ty\u2019n-y-coed,\n    Capel Curig,\n      North Wales._\n  _July 15th, 1919._\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter I.\n                        THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY\n\n    \u201cWhat is democracy? Sometimes, it is the name for a form of\n    government by which the ultimate control of the machinery of\n    government is committed to a numerical majority of the community.\n    Sometimes, and incorrectly, it is used to denote the numerical\n    majority itself, the poor or the multitude existing in a state.\n    Sometimes, and still more loosely, it is the name for a policy,\n    directed exclusively or mainly to the advantage of the labouring\n    class. Finally, in its broadest and deepest, most comprehensive and\n    most interesting sense, democracy is the name for a certain general\n    condition of society, having historic origins, springing from\n    circumstances and the nature of things, not only involving the\n    political doctrine of popular sovereignty but representing a cognate\n    group of corresponding tendencies over the whole field of moral,\n    social and even spiritual life within the democratic\n    community.\u201d\u2014LORD MORLEY.\n\n    \u201cI speak the password primeval, I give the sign of Democracy, By\n    God! I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart\n    of on the same terms.\u201d\u2014WALT WHITMAN.\n\n    \u201cTo be a democrat is not to decide on a certain form of human\n    association, it is to learn how to live with other men.\u201d\u2014MARY P.\n    FOLLETT.\n\n\nTHE inherent logic of the democratic idea calls for a society which will\nprovide for all its members those conditions of equal opportunity that\nare within human control. It denies all forms of special and exclusive\nprivilege, and affirms the sovereignty of the common man.\n\nIn practice, however, democracy has gone no further than the achievement\nof a form of government; and in popular discussion the word has usually\na connotation exclusively political. It is even yet but slowly becoming\nclear that a democratic form of government is no more than the bare\nframework of a democratic society; and democracy as we know it is justly\nopen to the criticism that it has not seriously taken in hand the task\nof clothing the political skeleton with a body of living social flesh.\n\nModern democracy is, of course, historically very young; and it may be\nreasonably maintained that it is premature to speak of its failure to\nrealise its full promise. Nevertheless, it is of some consequence that\nalready that part of the democratic programme which has been achieved\nand put to the proof is being exposed to heavy fire of destructive\ncriticism. During the past few years, we have become familiar with the\nidea of a world made safe for democracy; and in the minds of many people\ndemocracy (which in this connection means representative popular\ngovernment) stands as a sort of ultimate good which it is impious to\nchallenge or to criticise. Yet this democracy, for which the world has\nbeen presumably made safe at so great and sorrowful a price, is by some\nroundly declared to be radically unsafe for the world and a hindrance to\nsocial progress. The syndicalists, for instance, believe the democratic\nstate to be no more than the citadel of bourgeois and plutocratic\nprivilege, and have decreed its destruction, proposing to substitute for\nit a modified anarchism. Others, like Paul Bourget and Brunetiere, so\nfar from finding it the sanctuary of the privileged, fear it as a source\nof anarchy and social confusion, and invite us to retrace our steps to\nhappier days when authority being less diffused was more speedily and\neffectually exercised. Neither the syndicalist nor the authoritarian\ncriticism is wholly baseless; yet it is true that in neither case does\nit arise from an inherent defect in the democratic principle. The one\narises from the circumstance that political democracy still lacks its\nlogical economic corollary; the other from the fact that democracy is\nnot sustained by its proper ethical coefficient.\n\nThese, however, are not the only grounds for the increasing scepticism\nof the validity of democratic institutions. The democratic state, like\nits predecessors, has proved itself to be voracious of authority; and in\nthe exercise of its presumed omnicompetency it has increasingly occupied\nitself with matters, which\u2014both in respect of extent and content\u2014it is\nincapable of handling adequately. It has become palpably impossible to\nsubmit all the concerns of government to parliamentary discussion; and\nin consequence there has been a tendency on the one hand to invest\nadministrative departments with virtual legislative power, and on the\nother to convert representative assemblies into mere instruments for\nregistering the decisions of the executive government. The recent\nproposal for the establishment of a permanent statutory National\nIndustrial Council in England has been evoked by the palpable inability\nof Parliament to deal effectually with the problems of industrial\nproduction. Even before the War, it was becoming plain that the\ncongestion of parliamentary business in England called for some drastic\nremedy if parliament was to be saved from futility and discredit. But\nhere again, the failure has been due to no inherent defect in the\ndemocratic principle but rather to the fact that the unitary and\nabsolutist doctrine and practice of the state has hindered the proper\ndevelopment of democracy.\n\nIn a word, the trouble with democracy is that there is not enough of it.\nThe remedy for the ills of democracy is more democracy. Politically, it\nis still incomplete; its economic applications have yet to be made; and\nwhile we do lip service to its ethical presuppositions, they are far\nfrom being a rule of life. Yet lacking these things, democracy is\ncondemned to arrest, and through arrest to decay.\n\nMeantime the dynastic principle has fallen\u2014has indeed fallen under\ncircumstances which make its revival seem exceedingly remote.\nNevertheless, if democracy suffers arrest at this point in its history,\nif the peoples fail to work out its logic, society may lapse into an\nanarchy out of which dynasticism or something like it may once more\nemerge. It is no hyperbole to speak of the crisis of democracy; and it\nis only to be saved as the democratic peoples set themselves earnestly\nto the business of strengthening its stakes and lengthening its cords.\n\n\n                                   I\n\n\nFew British people of liberal mind are able to look back upon that\nperiod of their history which gathers around the Boer War without a\ncertain humiliation. Professor L. T. Hobhouse ascribes the popular\ndefection of the British people from the democratic principle and temper\nduring that time to four causes: (_a_) the decay of profound and vivid\nreligious belief; (_b_) the diffusion of a stream of German idealism\n\u201cwhich has swelled the current of retrogression from the plain\nrationalistic way of looking at life and its problems,\u201d and which has\nstimulated the growth of the doctrine of the absolute state and its\nimperialistic corollaries; (_c_) the career of Prince Bismarck, and\n(_d_) \u201cby far the most potent intellectual support of the reaction ...\nthe belief that physical science has given its verdict (for it came to\nthis) in favour of violence against social justice.\u201d This provides us\nwith an instance (so plain that another were superfluous) of the\ninability of an unfulfilled democratic order to resist alien and hostile\ninfluences that may be \u201cin the air,\u201d and of its consequent perversion to\nends which belie its own first principles. It is the permanent danger of\ndemocracy when it is not sustained and inspired by a generous moral\nimpulse to be prostituted to undemocratic ends. \u201cIt is at best\u201d (to\nquote Mr. Hobhouse again) \u201can instrument with which men who hold by the\nideal of social justice and human progress can work; but when these\nideals grow cold, it may, like other instruments, be turned to base\nuses.\u201d Lord Morley, with a similar sensitiveness to the perils of\ndemocracy asks whether we mean by it \u201ca doctrine or a force;\nconstitutional parchment or a glorious evangel; perfected machinery for\nthe wire-puller, the party-tactician, the spoils-man and the boss, or\nthe high and stern ideals of a Mazzini or a Tolstoi.\u201d It may, indeed, be\nreasonably held that worse has befallen it than Lord Morley\u2019s fears. We\nhave evidence how frequently democracy has in practice become the tool\nof strong and unscrupulous men and gangs of such men seeking selfish and\ncorrupt ends; and how, for Lincoln\u2019s famous formula, we have had\ngovernment of the people by a well-to-do oligarchy in the interest of\nthe privileged classes.\n\nNor have we any guarantee against this kind of degradation and\ndegeneracy except in the perpetual reaffirmation and revitalising of the\nspiritual and moral grounds of democracy. It may indeed be possible to\ncreate political safeguards against the exploitation of the people and\ntheir government in the interest of individuals and classes; but there\nis no such safeguard against democracy, as it were, exploiting itself\nfor undemocratic ends or sinking into undemocratic practices except in\nits continued education in the purposes for which it exists, in its\nextension into every region of life, and in its repeated solemn\nsubmission of itself to its principles and ideals. Until democracy\nbecomes and is felt to be a personal and collective vocation, it is\nforever liable to corruption and apostasy. Democracy can only live and\nthrive while men remain sincerely and consciously democratic. Liberty\nand Equality are doubtful and precarious boons, and may\u2014as they often\nhave\u2014become positive dangers without Fraternity. Democracy without its\nappropriate moral coefficient must be a vain and short-lived thing. So\nlong as, while professing to give a fair field to every man, it does no\nmore than provide an open field for the strong man, it will inevitably\nlead to the exploitation of the multitude and to the creation of new\nforms of privilege; and that in the main has been its recent history.\n\nNot less than by the loss or the absence of moral impulse, is democracy\nendangered by ignorance or forgetfulness of what it exists for. Two\nwords are usually taken to describe the characteristics of democracy,\n_liberty_ and _equality_; and the atmosphere of a particular democracy\ndepends upon whether it lays the larger emphasis on one or on the other\nof these. In England, for instance, the type is libertarian. The Briton\nhas cared less for political equality than for what he calls freedom,\nthe right of self-determination, the opportunity to live out his own\nlife in his own way. He has been less doctrinaire than his French\nneighbours and has not been much troubled by the logical anomaly of an\naristocracy so long as the aristocracy left him reasonable elbow-room.\nWhen the aristocracy was found to be obstructive, its pretensions were\nsuitably abridged. In general, the idea of formal equality has played a\nless important part in England than it has in France or the United\nStates. Democracy in the two latter countries is more specifically\negalitarian. This difference is, however, mainly a difference of stress\nupon two aspects of the same thing, the egalitarian emphasis having to\ndo with the formal status of the citizen, the libertarian with the\npersonal independence which should belong to the status.\n\nYet the inadequate co-ordination of the two ideas may, and indeed does,\nlead to certain unhappy consequences. In Great Britain, an insufficient\nattention to equality has led to a too prolonged survival of the idea of\na \u201cgoverning class\u201d; and social prestige still possesses an inordinate\ninfluence upon the distribution of political power. In France, on the\nother hand, an insufficient stress on liberty has tended to make\nFrenchmen _\u00e9tatistes_. According to Emile Faguet, they are accustomed to\nsubmit to despotism and are eager in turn to practise it. They are\nliberals only when they are in a minority. In the United States,\negalitarianism produces a kind of compulsory uniformitarianism. It is\nsignificant that, while in a state of war all nations are intolerant of\ndissent and free discussion, in the United States where the doctrine of\npolitical equality has reached its completest expression, dissent from\nthe common view has been much more harshly treated than in any other\nbelligerent country. The cardinal sin appears to be that of breaking the\nranks. Liberty, according to Lord Acton, is \u201cthe assurance that every\nman shall be protected in doing what he believes to be his duty against\nthe influence of authority and majorities, custom, and opinion;\u201d and if\nthat be true, it does not necessarily follow that democracy is the home\nof liberty. An egalitarian democracy may indeed become the tomb of\nliberty. \u201cDemocracy,\u201d says the same learned authority, \u201cno less than\nmonarchy or aristocracy sacrifices everything to maintain itself, and\nstrives with an energy and a plausibility that kings and nobles cannot\nattain to override representation, to annul all the forces of resistance\nand deviation, and to secure by plebiscite, referendum, or caucus, free\nplay for the will of the majority. The true democratic principle that\nnone shall have power over the people is taken to mean that none shall\nbe able to restrain or to evade its power; the true democratic principle\nthat the people shall not be made to do what it does not like, is taken\nto mean that it shall not be required to tolerate what it does not like.\nThe true democratic principle that every man\u2019s free-will shall be as\nunfettered as possible is taken to mean that the free will of the\nsovereign people shall be fettered in nothing.... Democracy claims to be\nnot only supreme, without authority above, but absolute, without\nindependence below, to be its own master and not a trustee. The old\nsovereigns of the world are exchanged for a new one, who may be\nflattered and deceived but whom it is impossible to corrupt or to\nresist; and to whom must be rendered the things that are C\u00e6sar\u2019s, and\nalso the things that are God\u2019s.\u201d Democracy appeared in order to deliver\nthe individual from a dehumanising subjection; but it may become a\ndehumanising tyranny itself. A sovereign people may become as harsh and\nmerciless as a sovereign lord.\n\nThe democratic idea is the corollary of the doctrine of the equal\nintrinsic worth of every individual soul. The modern democratic movement\nhas started from a recognition of this principle; and the principle is\nmeaningless unless it implies the prescriptive right of the individual\nto self-determination. Lord Acton\u2019s definition of liberty is inadequate\nbecause he approaches it from the standpoint of one who was in a\npermanent religious minority in his own country, and in a permanent\nintellectual minority in his church. Liberty is surely the assurance\nthat a man may have full opportunity to live out his own life and to\ngrow to the full stature of his manhood, to be true to himself through\neverything. This requires the recognition of real personal independence\nand a definite minimum of obligatory uniformity. In another connection,\nActon insists that \u201cliberty is not a means to a higher political end; it\nis itself the highest political end. It is not for the sake of a good\npublic administration that it is required, but for security in the\npursuit of the highest objects of civil society and of private life.\u201d It\nis so frequently assumed that the function of government is the\nestablishment and preservation of order that it is well to remember that\nit is a comparatively easy thing to secure some kind of order. The real\ndifficulty is to establish and to secure liberty. We are far too ready\nto assume that liberty is capable of looking after itself and that the\nfragile plant which needs our solicitude is social order. But liberty\nstands in jeopardy every hour, not less in a democracy than in an\nautocracy. And in so far as a democracy, which was born of the craving\nfor liberty fails to preserve and to extend liberty, it proves itself\nbankrupt.\n\nAnd just as democracy is only made safe from corruption and\nsubordination to undemocratic ends by repeated solemn affirmation of its\nmoral and spiritual foundations, so it is only made safe from declining\ninto absolutism and tyranny by constant return upon its metaphysical\ncentre\u2014the sanctity of the individual. In the modern world, the\nmultitude is not in danger; our chief pre-occupation must be to save the\nindividual from being swamped by the multitude. We are apt not to see\nthe trees for the wood; we must be for ever reminding ourselves that the\nwood is made up of the trees. Democracy that tends to authority and\nuniformity is foreordained to decay; the democracy of life is one of\nfreedom and infinite variety. Democracy has yet to solve the problem of\nsetting the individual free without opening the door to individualism\nand anarchy.\n\n\n                                   II\n\n\nIt may be with some reason pleaded that the defects of modern democracy\nspring from the conditions under which it emerged as a historical fact.\nIt has appeared with an aspect altogether too negative, as though the\nabolition of monarchy or aristocracy or any form of privilege were\nsufficient to bring it to birth. The democratic principle has\nimplications which are not exhausted with the destruction of autocracy\nor aristocracy or even with the formal affirmation of popular\nsovereignty and the institution of a universal and equal franchise.\nHistorically, democracy is the product, direct or indirect, of popular\nrisings against political privilege whether vested in a person or in a\nclass. Probably we should have to seek a still anterior cause in the\npower of economic exploitation which political power confers upon him\nwho holds it. The mainspring of revolution is the sense of\ndisinheritance rendered intolerable by injustice and exploitation and\nthe consequent demand of the disinherited class for its appointed share\nin the common human inheritance of light and life. But the tragedy of\nrevolution (despite the conventional historical judgment) is that it has\nnever gone far enough. The records of revolution are filled chiefly with\nits negative and destructive performances because its impulse, not\nhaving been sustained by an adequate social vision, ran out before it\ncompleted its work or before it could swing on to the business of\nconstruction. It was too readily assumed that the one thing needful was\nto break down the one palpable disabling barrier of privilege. That\ndone, the rest would follow; the golden age would at once materialise.\nBut it has never done so. It was not perceived that the logic of\nrevolution required and pointed to a sequel of positive and creative\nsocial action.\n\nThis was essentially Lamennais\u2019 plea in 1831. A revolution, he told his\nfellow countrymen, is only the beginning of things. You have cleared the\nground; upon that cleared ground, you have to raise the fabric of a\nliving society. France did, indeed, already provide the instance of the\ndanger of an uncompleted revolution. The political equality established\nby the Revolution of 1789, was intended to give a fair field to every\nman; but because it went no further, in effect it opened the door to the\nstrong man. The strong man appeared presently in the person of Napoleon;\nand with Napoleon came the Empire and all that that episode cost Europe\nin blood and treasure. The same kind of miscarriage (in another region\nand on a larger scale) has befallen the wider historical development of\nthe French Revolution. Because it was not seen that the \u201cnatural right\u201d\nof property might no less than the \u201cdivine right\u201d of noble birth become\na source of disinheritance, the door was opened to a movement which in\nthe nineteenth century produced a new type of privilege and a new manner\nof disinheritance. That Jack\u2019s vote has been declared to be as good as\nhis master\u2019s has not saved Jack from an exploitation as real and\nburdensome as that under which his father groaned. But it is of a\ndifferent kind. The older disability was chiefly agrarian; the new is\nindustrial. The doctrine of political liberty (interpreted in the light\nof Adam Smith) received an economic translation in the doctrine of\n\u201claissez-faire\u201d; and this combined, first, with the restrictions imposed\nupon the power of the territorial aristocracy, second, with the new\ncommercial civilisation which began at the Industrial Revolution, and\nthird, with the advantage with which the propertied classes, especially\nthe rich merchant class, started in the new order, has brought about a\nnew kind of disability. The common people have exchanged the old master\nfor a new, a feudal aristocracy for an industrial plutocracy, land\nbarons for trade barons; they have been released from agrarian serfdom\nonly to be tied to the wheel of industrial wage-slavery. Political\nemancipation did not bring with it real freedom.\n\nIt was characteristic of Lamennais\u2019 insight that he saw that political\nliberty without safeguards against economic exploitation would prove a\nvain thing. Writing to the working men of Paris in 1847, he said that,\nwith them he \u201cshould demand that in accordance with justice and reason,\nthe question should be gone into, how it is possible, in the\ndistribution of the fruits of labour, to do away with the revolting\nanomalies which crush under their weight the most numerous portion of\nthe human family.\u201d[1] Emile Faguet justly observes that Lamennais saw\nthat the coming enemy was \u201c_le pouvoir d\u2019argent_,\u201d and that he did what\nhe could to choke it off before it could establish itself. Nor was\nLamennais alone in his sense of the inadequacy of political change to\nmeet the needs of the common people. Robert Owen reached a similar\nconclusion, and, indeed, was so sceptical of the value of political\naction for social improvement that during one period of his life he\npreached outright to the working classes a doctrine of political\nindifferentism. The working-class movements which came into being early\nin the nineteenth century\u2014the Co-operative Societies and the Trade\nUnions\u2014originated in the need of countervailing the economic\ndisadvantage under which the new order had placed the worker and which\nthe endeavour to establish political equality and liberty had been\npowerless to prevent. The growth of Socialism and Syndicalism represents\na revolt from a social order in which the privilege of noble birth has\nbeen superseded by the privilege of property, and the disinherited class\nhas but suffered a new disinheritance.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  This view was shared by Mazzini, whose gospel was at many points\n  identical with that of Lamennais. See _The Duties of Man_, ch. xi.\n\nIt is by now abundantly evident that the next stage in the evolution of\ndemocracy will consist of a movement of the proletarian masses to remove\nthe economic disabilities under which they believe themselves to be\nsuffering. The revolutionary movement in Europe is directed not only\nagainst the dynastic tradition but against the modern institution of\nprivate capitalism; and while the influences of change that have now\noverwhelmed Russia and Germany were afoot long before the war, it is not\nto be questioned that their liberation was due to the War. Beneath the\noutward calm of empire there was a seething mass of unrest; and once the\ncrust of empire was cracked, this lava of human passion rushed through.\nThe worker has come to believe that the origins of the war are to be\ntraced to economic causes, direct products of the capitalist system of\nindustry, which is also the source of his disabilities in times of\npeace; and whether in peace or in war, the worker has at last to pay the\nbill. It is not to the point here to discuss whether the premises from\nwhich the worker argues or the conclusions he has reached are valid or\nnot. We are concerned only to note the state of the case at the present\nmoment. We observe that the failure of dynastic imperialism has become\nthe occasion of economic revolution; and in this circumstance we are to\nlook for the clue to the course of the democratic movement in the\nimmediate future.\n\nThe movement seems indeed to be historically due. The first great\nturning point in modern history was the Protestant Reformation with its\ninsistence upon religious liberty as against ecclesiastical authority.\nThe second turning point was the French Revolution, which was the first\nact in the drama of establishing political liberty as against the power\nof aristocracy. It may well turn out that the Russian Revolution marks\nthe beginning of the third crisis in the modern period, the first act in\nthe drama of economic emancipation. The Protestant Reformation affirmed\nthe liberty of the layman against a privilege resting upon an alleged\nmonopoly of the means of grace; the French Revolution affirmed the\nliberty of the citizen against privilege resting upon the fact of noble\nbirth; the Revolution now in progress will affirm the liberty of the\nworker as against privilege resting upon the presumed rights of\nproperty. Perhaps we are about to realise the long delayed economic\ncorollary of the French Revolution.\n\nSeveral circumstances of war-experience have given a powerful stimulus\nto the movement for radical economic change. Before the war, men were\nstill haunted by the fear that the revolutionary changes advocated by\nthe more advanced spirits might turn out to be a transition from the\nfrying pan into the fire. But the cynical readiness of the \u201cbig\nbusiness\u201d interests in all the belligerent countries to turn the\nnation\u2019s necessity to their own advantage; and the now demonstrated\nincompetency and wastefulness of the system of private capitalist\nenterprise have served to remove from among the workers any lingering\nsense that the good of the nation is bound up with the existing\nindustrial order. In Great Britain in particular the close industrial\norganisation required by the war has provided a revelation of hitherto\nunexplored and even unsuspected possibilities of production, proving\n\u201cbig\u201d business to have been uncommonly bad business. The immense\nincrease of output in all industries, through the proper co-ordination\nand standardisation of processes, the systematic use of scientific\ninvestigation, and the more adequate oversight of the physical condition\nof the workers has made it plain that private capitalism either would\nnot or could not make proper use of the productive resources of the\nBritish people. For instance, the ignorant opposition of the average\nemployer to the movement for reducing the hours of labour has convicted\nhim of a stupid incapacity to handle men, especially in view of such\nfindings as those recorded by Lord Henry Bentinck, who shows\nconclusively (from data drawn from the engineering, printing and textile\ntrades) that \u201cin every case in which experiments have been tried, the\nresult in output has been favourable to a shortening of the working\nday.\u201d[2]\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  _Contemporary Review_, February, 1918.\n\nMoreover, the war-time emphasis upon the idea of democracy has greatly\nstimulated the demand for its extension into the field of industry. This\ndemand was assuming definite shape before the war; but what was at that\ntime the propaganda of a comparatively small group has now become the\nfaith of a multitude; and this faith is becoming more and more\narticulate as a demand for a socially intensive as well as\ngeographically extensive application of the democratic principle. The\nargument runs in some such fashion as this. Broadly speaking, the\ndemocratic idea has three notes; first, the institution of those\nconditions of equal opportunity which are within human control; second,\nthe participation of the community as a whole in the creation of these\nconditions, which means a universal franchise and equal ungraded\npartnership in affairs; and third, the absence of any privileged class\nwhich is able to impose its will upon the rest or any part of the rest.\nSome rough approximation to this state of things has been made in the\npolitical region; there it is accounted good and right. Why, then should\nnot the same process be good and right in other regions of life? For\ninstance, the greater part of a man\u2019s life gathers around and is\ngoverned by his work; yet this democratic principle which is so\nestimable in politics is taboo in industry. To begin with, there is no\nsuch thing as a condition of equal opportunity in the industrial region.\nCertain antecedent advantages of birth, possession, and education have\ncreated a privileged class; and the rest are under a corresponding\nhandicap. There was a time when the ranker could rise out of the ranks\nand make a field for himself; but in these days of trusts, combines,\nchain-stores and the like, the opportunity of the ranker to quit the\nranks has dwindled almost to vanishing point. In the second place,\nindustry is under class government. The persons engaged in it are\ndivided into masters and servants, employers and employees; and the\nhired man has hardly a word to say in determining the conditions of his\nwork. The only freedom he possesses lies in the choice of a master; and\neven this, under the r\u00e9gime of large corporations, is steadily\ndisappearing. For the rest, he is confined to a choice between working\nunder conditions imposed by the employer and not working at all, which\nmeans starvation. In industry there is a rule of privilege as real as\nthat of the old territorial aristocracy; and the modern practice of\ninvestment has served to perpetuate this privilege within the bounds of\na single class by the simple operation of the accident of birth, just as\nfeudal landownership in another age became the foundation of\naristocratic power. The one qualification which requires to be made here\nis that the concentration of large multitudes of workers in urban\ncentres, as the result of the machine industry, has enabled the workers\nto join together in self-defence; and the Trade Union has to some extent\nmitigated the insolence of plutocratic power.\n\nThe argument, however, does not end here. It proceeds to the analysis of\nthe causes of this privilege; and it finds it in the doctrine of\nproperty-rights. It would take us too far afield to trace this doctrine\nto its origins. Apparently the French thinkers who laid the train of the\nRevolution believed that the \u201cnatural right\u201d of property was the\nnecessary check upon the natural right of freedom; but they could not\nforesee the developments of the Industrial Revolution. Otherwise it is\nquestionable whether they would have found the solution of their problem\nso easy. For it is not open to argument that the presumed sanctity of\nproperty rights has, under the conditions created by the Industrial\nRevolution furnished the foundation of the modern capitalist order and\nits corollaries. The capitalist owes his power to his possession of\nproperty in the shape of industrial plant or of money. Yet it is plain\nto anyone who analyses the position with any degree of realism that the\nmere possession of a number of things should no more entitle or enable\nan individual to lord it over his fellows than an inheritance of blue\nblood. Nevertheless, in point of cold fact, that is the present\nposition; there is, however, a prospect that the divine right of\nproperty may presently go the same way as the divine right of kings.\n\nBut it will go not under the pressure of a theory. It will disappear\nunder the strain of economic necessity. In England the proposal of a\n\u201clevy on capital\u201d has been widely and seriously discussed. It is\nasserted that it will be impossible to raise by taxation a revenue\nsufficient to pay the interest on the war debt after providing for\nindispensable national services; and there appears to be no way out of\nthis _impasse_ save by making a levy upon the accumulated wealth of the\ncountry. A levy equal to the debt would require to take something like\ntwo-fifths of the estimated total of the private capital. The methods by\nwhich this might be done do not now concern us; nor does it matter very\nmuch for our argument that the industrial and commercial magnates, and\nthe _ancien r\u00e9gime_ economists are declaiming vehemently against it.\nEven the fact that the levy may not be carried out in the form now\nadvocated is not of great moment. What is important is that the serious\ndiscussion evoked by the proposal has shown that the traditional\ndoctrine of property-rights is in liquidation. There has not been, so\nfar as the present writer has been able to discover, any lifting-up of\nhands in horror at this suggestion of a sacrilegious invasion upon this\nancient sanctity; the discussion has been conducted on the plane of\nexpediency and utility. This marks a very considerable movement\u2014for to\nmany, the Reform Bill of 1831 looked like the end of the world, since it\nwas (as a politician of the time said) \u201ca maxim that every government\nwhich tends to separate property from constitutional government must be\nliable to perpetual revolution.\u201d[3] Property was the chief cornerstone\nof the social structure; and even as late as 1888, Lord Acton wrote to\nMr. Gladstone that he hears that \u201cthe skilled artisans of London are\nhostile to the clergy but not to property,\u201d which latter circumstance he\nplainly regards as a sign of grace. Yet to-day, under the exigencies of\npublic need, it is seriously discussed whether the state should not lay\nits hands on anything up to a half of the private wealth of the country.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  Quoted in Laski, _Problems of Sovereignty_, p. 70\u2014note.\n\nThis is essentially a return to the view of a saner age. The medi\u00e6val\ndoctrine was that right in property was not absolute, but that it was of\nthe nature of a trust. This is the view that underlies the project of a\nlevy. Professor Hobhouse draws a distinction between \u201cproperty for use\u201d\nand \u201cproperty for power.\u201d The right to possess property can hardly be\ndenied. It is essential to a man\u2019s freedom and growth that he should\nhave absolute control over a certain number of things. But it should be\nrestricted to what is necessary for personal freedom and growth. A man\nmay have, that is, property for use but not for power. He may not have\nso much property as would enable him to control or virtually to own the\nlife and labour of others. It is to some such doctrine of property as\nthis that the mind of progressive labour is tending. Property is in\nprospect of socialisation; and perhaps only such socialised property\nwill in future be available as capital. Under economic pressure, the\ndoctrine of property is being ethicised; and to ethicise the doctrine is\nsimply to declare property to be wholly subordinate to social ends.\n\nThe first step in modern democracy was the socialisation of political\npower; the second without which the first cannot be complete, will be\nthe socialisation of economic power.\n\n\n                                  III\n\n\nWe should, however, be deluding ourselves if we suppose that radical\neconomic change will of itself bring about the kind of world that we\nwant. The miscarriage which has followed political revolution in the\npast may no less disastrously follow economic revolution. Economic\nchange is of itself powerless to secure us from the appearance of new\ntypes of privilege; and there is not a little danger that the present\ntendencies of some advanced thought may lead to bureaucratic government.\nBetween a proletarian bureaucracy and an industrial plutocracy there is\nlittle to choose; and the tyranny of the expert may become as galling as\nthat of a despot. \u201cIn the socialistic presentment,\u201d says Professor\nHobhouse, \u201cthe expert sometimes looks strangely like the powers that\nbe\u2014in education for instance, a clergyman under a new title, in business\nthat very captain of industry who at the outset was the socialist\u2019s\nchief enemy. Be that as it may, as the expert comes to the front and\nefficiency becomes the watchword of administration, all that was human\nin socialism vanishes out of it. Its tenderness for the losers in the\nrace, its protests against class-tyranny, its revolt against commercial\nmaterialism, all the sources of inspiration under which socialist\nleaders have faced poverty and prison, are gone like a dream and instead\nof them we have a conception of society as a perfect piece of machinery,\npulled by wires radiating from a single centre, and all men are either\nexperts or puppets. Humanity, Liberty, Justice are expunged from the\nbanner and the single word _efficiency_ replaces them.\u201d This is, indeed,\na sufficiently dismal prospect, for which it is hardly worth while to\nchange our present state. It should be said, however, that this\nparticular peril is greatly minimised by the current emphasis upon\ndemocratic control in industry. The danger remains real notwithstanding.\nNor is it the only danger inherent in a purely economic change. Indeed,\nit may be questioned whether any economic change has elements of\npermanence, while it is only economic.\n\nThe word _efficiency_ betrays the mind of the age which gave it its\ncurrent connotation. It was a machine-governed mind; and mechanistic\nconceptions of life and progress are from the nature of the case\nunfriendly to the democratic spirit. The appearance of the \u201cefficiency\nengineer\u201d showed the low estate into which man had fallen\u2014man made once\na little lower than the angels but now treated as a little lower than\nthe machine. The business of efficiency engineering was the closer\nsubordination of the man to the machine by methods alleged to be\nscientific. Nothing could show more plainly than this does the absence\nof that broad humanism which is the very breath of democracy; and even\nthe generous intention of the socialist ideal was vitiated by the\nmechanistic character of socialist doctrine. Statecraft itself became an\naffair of efficiency-engineering on a large scale; and the logic of the\nmechanistic habit of thought reached its fine flower in the merciless\nregimentation of the German people and the enthronement of the \u201cGreat\nGod Gun.\u201d From this pernicious heresy, we may hopefully expect that\nreflection on our war-experience may deliver us. Already there are\nmanifest signs of a reaction to a healthier and kindlier conception of\nlife and its meaning. The excessive and artificial centralisation of\npower in the State is being challenged by a demand for the revival of\nregional culture and such a redistribution of the functions of\ngovernment as a recognition of the \u201cregion\u201d would require.[4] The\nbusiness of \u201cunscrambling\u201d the egg, will indeed be long and difficult;\nbut it is clear that any advance in the essential humanities is bound up\nwith a release of life from the artificial integrations forced upon it\nby the machine civilisation. Mr. Delisle Burns has shown us that the\nessential note of Greek life was its sociability;[5] and this is indeed\na pole to which normal human nature ever swings true. But in the Greek\ncity, sociability was vitiated and ultimately destroyed by the tragic\nschism of a slave-system; while in modern civilisation it has been\npoisoned by the dominion of the machine. The swamping of the \u201cregion\u201d by\nthe state has enfeebled the natural social bonds of a less sophisticated\nage; and somehow or other democracy must thread its way back to a\nsimpler and more spontaneous sociability. For the artificial synthesis\nof \u201cthe individual and the state,\u201d we must restore the natural order of\n\u201cmyself and my neighbours.\u201d\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  Upon this subject, see _The Coming Polity_, by Geddes and Branford.\n  (Williams and Norgate.)\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  In his _Greek Ideals_.\n\nBut we have travelled so far from the simple amenities of the \u201cregion\u201d\nand our minds have become so sophisticated in artificial and mechanical\nmodernity that our recovery must begin in something akin to a spiritual\nrenewal, in a new perception of essential human values. Economic change\nwill not deliver us from the mechanistic obsession; and we shall only be\nsaved from the inherent dangers of economic change under present\nconditions by a fresh recognition of the central principle of democracy.\nThat every soul has equal worth carries with it the corollary that\npersonality must be conceived as an end in itself and not merely as a\nmeans. It is our quarrel with the Junker classes wherever we find them,\nthat they deliberately relegate large masses of their fellowmen into a\nsub-human category. Democracy is the direct denial of this posture. It\naffirms on the contrary that every man has a prescriptive right to stand\non his feet unashamed, and to have full opportunity to become the whole\nman he may be. It ascribes to him certain liberties and a certain\ninalienable status among his fellows; and the employer who regards his\nmen as \u201chands\u201d denies democracy as directly as does the autocrat who\nregards his subjects as serfs or cannonfodder. In other words, democracy\nrequires a specific type of personal relationship between men; and\nperhaps, its troubles are chiefly due to the fact that while it preached\nliberty and equality with no uncertain sound, it neglected to lay a\ncorresponding emphasis upon fraternity. In truth, democracy is beset\nmore perilously and more persistently by the inward enemy than the foe\nwithout\u2014the inner enemy that lurks in men\u2019s souls. For though there be a\ndemocrat in every man, there is also a potential aristocrat. The\nultimate battle-ground of the democratic ideal is in men\u2019s hearts. After\nthe external enemies of democracy are defeated on land and on sea,\ndemocracy will have to go on fighting for its life in our souls. In this\nas in all things else, \u201cthe kingdom of heaven is within you.\u201d\n\nThe personal practice of democracy is comparatively simple, as its\ncentral doctrine is. The equal worth of souls does not of course imply\nequal capacity; nor does the fact of unequal natural capacity do away\nwith the truth of equal worth. It simply indicates the kind of world we\nlive in. It is a world in which capacity is the measure not of worth but\nof obligation; and the law of life is mutual service. In one of the very\nfew political allusions which Jesus made, He stated this point with much\nplainness. \u201cYe know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them\nand they that have authority over them are called \u2018benefactors\u2019\u201d (as it\nwas in the beginning, and has been ever since, when autocrats and their\nlike have conceded to their subjects some fragment of the natural rights\nof which they have despoiled them and then have posed as \u201cbenefactors,\u201d\nand when imperialists talk of conferring their peculiar _Kultur_ on the\n\u201clesser breeds without the law\u201d), \u201cbut,\u201d said Jesus, \u201cit shall not be so\namong you. He that is greatest among you, let him be the servant of\nall.\u201d This is the authentic democratic spirit and the personal practice\nwithout which democracy cannot live.\n\nIt is not enough to pay lip service to democratic ideals\u2014the sanctity of\npersonality and the obligation of mutual service; or even to accept them\nin a spirit of pious sentimentalism. That kind of thing is already\ncommon enough. To the idealistic temper, we must attach the pragmatic\nhabit, and translate our doctrines into concrete programmes of\nemancipation and co-operation. The city of God is not to be built with\ngood intentions. Fraternity must be rendered into a polity. Yet even\nfraternity may perish in formality except it be sustained by a living\nbrotherliness. _It is the spirit that quickeneth._ Democracy like every\nliving thing must either grow or decay. If it stops at a political form\nor an economic scheme, then it must decline and die. It is only as its\nessential spirit captures our consciences and wills and its central\nprinciple is consistently and continuously applied that it can survive\nthe perversity of our nature and the vicissitudes of history. It must\nbecome a crusade and a holy war.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter II.\n                    THE TESTS OF DEMOCRATIC PROGRESS\n\n    \u201cThe fundamental reform for which the times call is rather a\n    reconsideration of the ends for which all civilised government\n    exists, in a word, the return to a saner measure of social\n    values.\u201d\u2014LORD MORLEY.\n\n\nTHE next stage in the realisation of the democratic ideal would appear\nto be tolerably clear. We are moving toward an extension of the\ndemocratic principle into the economic and industrial sphere; but is the\nmovement governed by an understanding of the goal we have in view? Are\nwe sure that our immediate policies are consistent with the \u201cfar gain\u201d\nwhich we should seek? Or are we to regard progress purely as a somewhat\nblind experimental affair, largely beyond control? We are obviously\nmoving\u2014somewhere; the movement indeed promises to be an improvement. But\nare there any tests which can be applied to it in order that we may\nsatisfy ourselves that the course we are on will land us safely in port?\n\n\n                                   I\n\n\nMr. Thorstein Veblen has rendered an important service to this\ngeneration by showing how the technology of the machine industry has\ninvaded our minds and led us to an almost exclusive pre-occupation with\n_processes_. It is this intellectual bias which explains\u2014at least in\ngreat part\u2014our complete capitulation to the Darwinian hypothesis and\naccounts for the way in which we have pressed it out of its proper\nsphere to furnish clues in religion, history, and ethics\u2014regions in\nwhich there are factors to be considered which are not included among\nthe data of the doctrine of biological evolution. Here also is the\nexplanation of the wide acceptance of the pragmatist philosophy.\nPragmatism is indeed the characteristic philosophy of the machine-age;\nits postulate \u201cthat truth is what works\u201d is clearly derived from the\nengine-shop, where efficiency is the only rule. Generally it may also be\nsaid that it is this mechanistic attention to processes which accounts\nfor the importance and omnicompetency ascribed to the still juvenile\nscience of psychology; and this is particularly true of the application\nof psychology and psychological method to the problems of sociology.\n\nPsychology is the fruit of the application of the scientific method to\nmental processes; its subject matter consists of the observable\nphenomena of mind. Its application to sociology has produced an almost\nexclusive concentration on social functions; and while this has\nimportant uses, it does not furnish us with the clue we need to our\nsociological tasks. Mental functions, whether of the individual or of\nsociety, cannot be treated in the same way as chemical reactions.\nChemical reactions are predetermined and invariable; human functions are\ndirigible. Those functions which ultimately govern and sustain human\nactivity and determine human character are directed to more or less\nsharply recognised and chosen ends. It is indeed true that many of the\nprocesses which are concerned in the movement of life are, as Mr. Cooley\nhas pointed out, unconscious and seemingly impersonal, such as those\nwhich account for the growth of tradition and the variations of\nlanguage. Nevertheless, as Mr. Cooley himself very excellently shows in\nhis illustration of the growth of a book in its author\u2019s mind, even\nthese unconscious and involuntary processes fall into line with a\ndefinitely fixed purpose of the mind.[6] The problem of sound social\nintegration is not merely an affair of processes operating properly. For\nhuman powers may function, at least for a time, in a normal way even\nwhile they are being directed to mischievous and perverse ends. Modern\nGermany supplies an instance of unexampled attention to social\nprocesses; but it is not open to question that all this has been\ndirected to a perverse and immoral end, and has (as the event has shown)\nculminated in catastrophe and confusion. Just so a man\u2019s intellect may\noperate brilliantly; yet the man himself may be a thief. Psychology may\nclaim that its business is a disinterested study of processes; and the\nclaim is justly made. But the same claim cannot be made for sociology.\nThe sociologist may indeed claim that he too is a scientist; and that\nhis science like every other is empirical and not teleological. But the\ntwo claims are not parallel. Psychology deals with an _opus operatum_,\nthe actual concrete mind as it is; whereas the assumption which\nunderlies all sociology is that it is handling an _opus operandum_, a\nwork still to be done, the production of a living and wholesome society.\nThe teleological interest is necessarily supreme. This does not mean\nthat sociology has not its empirical aspects; of course, it has; and\nthese aspects are all important for the construction of a sound\nsociology. But we shall produce a mere torso of sociology if we suppose\nwe can ignore the problem of ends. The relation of psychology to\nsociology is of much the same character as its relation to education or\nthe relation of physiology to public health.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Charles Horton Cooley, _Social Process_, p. 16.\n\nIt is probable, moreover, that the obscuration of this question of ends\nhas been helped by the modern acceptance of the doctrine of progress.\nThis in its turn appears to be mainly due to the application of the\nprinciple of evolution to human affairs. We have supposed that because\nliving nature shows a process of development, the life of man is also\nnecessarily governed by a law of predestined progress, from worse to\nbetter, from the simple to the more complex. The result of this\nevolutionary view of human affairs has been to make the study of ends\nappear impertinent. The ends are already determined; why then trouble\nourselves about them? It is true that we do not know whither this _vis a\ntergo_ is propelling us; the only thing we can do, therefore, is to\nstudy the processes by which it works as we see them in operation in\nmen\u2019s minds, whether the single or the mass mind. We shall observe them,\nduly record them, and contemplate them in a spirit of detachment,\nwithout concerning ourselves overmuch with their destination. But it is\nnow too late in the day to suppose that this attitude can be seriously\nmaintained. The area of the margin of human freedom may be a subject of\ncontroversy; but it is impossible to take seriously the kind of\ndeterminism which denies the possibility of directing human action to\ndeliberately chosen ends. The actual range of our control over our\nactions may be limited; but within those limits it is very real. And in\nany case it does not require to be very much to make the evolution\nhypothesis of very doubtful validity as an interpretation of the whole\nlife of man.[7]\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  For a concise statement of the philosophical argument against a\n  doctrine of progress based upon biological evolution, see Bertrand\n  Russell, _Mysticism and Logic_, pp. 105, 106.\n\nSociology must concern itself with ends; and it must do so at its own\nbeginnings. If this means that it has to forfeit its claim to a strictly\nscientific status, so be it. There is no virtue in replying that the\nquestion of ends is an affair of speculation and hypothesis. That is\nindeed true; but it cannot be helped. We are compelled to speculate\nconcerning ends since there is no other way of reaching a conception of\nthem. And there is no harm in speculation so long as it starts from the\nsoundest available premises, and its conclusions are not hardened into\ndogma. Sociology will hardly rise above an academic futility until it\nabandons its obsession to rank as a pure science and makes bold to\ndefine however tentatively the goal toward which social processes should\nbe directed. Let it by all means make its surveys and collate its\nstatistics unremittingly; but these things it ought to do and not to\nleave the other undone.\n\n\n                                   II\n\n\nYet it becomes plain, immediately we begin to discuss this question of\nends, that if we exclude definitely religious considerations from the\nargument, we cannot indicate an end that has the character of a real\nend, that is, an absolute ultimacy. It is indeed questionable how far\neven the religious postulate directly provides the conception of an end,\nexcept to the comparatively small company of people who are strongly\nmystical by nature. The Shorter Catechism taught us that the chief end\nof man was to seek God and to glorify Him for ever, but to most of us\nthis brings not information but bewilderment; and Mr. Kipling\u2019s paradise\nwhere the painter \u201cdraws the thing as he sees it for the God of things\nas they are\u201d is attractive but elusive. The truth appears to be that for\nthe multitude of religiously disposed persons, the sense of God becomes\neffectual for conduct only as it dramatises itself in the form of a\nsocial vision or a personal relationship; and the ascendency of Jesus in\nthe Christian tradition is explained by the power He has possessed of\ninviting that unreserved personal loyalty through which the sense of God\nassumes reality for common men. Such a phrase as \u201cthe glory of God\u201d\ndescribes not our knowledge but our ignorance. All the content which can\nintelligibly be given to it is that there is an ideal end toward which\nwe are called to move. This, however, does not mean that it is barren of\nimmediate effect on conduct. We know that throughout history it has had\nthe power to evoke a supreme disinterestedness in people who have been\nsensitive to it. It is, of course, akin to what Mr. Benjamin Kidd calls\n\u201cthe emotion of the ideal;\u201d and it is related closely to the\ncharacteristic poetic anticipation and hope expressed in such passages\nas Tennyson\u2019s in which he speaks of the \u201cone far-off divine event to\nwhich the whole creation moves.\u201d\n\nBut disinterestedness and \u201cthe emotion of the ideal,\u201d while they are\nessential to any kind of healthy social existence afford but slender\nfoundation for a positive social policy. No moral attitude or emotion\nwill carry us far except it be evoked by an ideal which can dramatise\nitself in terms of a more or less achievable undertaking. We are\ntherefore compelled to relinquish the hope of a definition of absolute\nsocial ends, and must be content with something more modest and\nmanageable. We may at least attempt to indicate certain proximate social\naims. Even if we cannot hopefully describe the ultimate goal of life, we\nmay reasonably endeavour to answer the question\u2014What do we want our\nsocial organisation to produce? Just what results are we to aim at? That\nsome such discussion as this is involved in any fruitful handling of the\nquestion of social integration is clear from the fact that the\nconception of an aim is either implicit or explicit in all attempts to\nformulate a social polity ever since Aristotle defined the aim of the\nRepublic as the promotion of the good life. But this definition, like\nMill\u2019s \u201cgreatest good of the greatest number\u201d raises further\nquestions\u2014What is the nature of the good? What is the characteristic\nnote and quality of the good life? This indeed takes us to the very\ncentre of our problem; for at last the controversy between the\nmilitarist and the pacifist, the protectionist and the free-trader, the\nauthoritarian and the libertarian, springs from differing conceptions of\nthe good life. This is not to say that either party has worked out a\nreasoned conviction on the point. Both appear to start from certain\ninstinctive acceptances, determined largely by temperamental\nvariations,\u2014which points to the need of a rigorously rationalistic\nexploration of this entire region. Mr. Graham Wallace speaks of \u201cthe\norganisation of happiness\u201d; but as he himself perceives, he is speaking\nin paradox. It seems in any case improbable that our social aims can be\ndefined in terms of an emotional state.\n\n\n                                  III\n\n\nA good deal of confusion has been introduced into this subject by a\ntendency to regard society itself as an end. In much modern thought upon\nthe matter, the individual is conceived as attaining his own end through\nhis due contribution to the life of the group. The extreme development\nof this view is to be found in the German doctrine of the state, a\ndoctrine which prevails in more or less perfection wherever the Hegelian\nphilosophy has struck its roots.[8] On this view, the individual has\nneither function nor end which is not to be expressed in terms of his\nown personal subordination to the state. He is a cog in the wheel, and\nno more. The modern dogma of progress has reinforced this view to some\nextent; as has also the obsession of _size_, which is one of the\nby-products of our extended knowledge of the physical universe and which\nhas had the effect of minimising the significance of the single life.\nBut whatever the causes to which this view is attributable, its\ninfluence on sociological thought is beyond question. It has been\nassumed, with varying explicitness, that the supra-personal end which\nthe individual is to serve is to be identified with the social group to\nwhich he belongs. It is his appointed purpose to minister to the\nhappiness of the group or to increase its efficiency as a military or\neconomic unit.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  The devout Hegelian who dislikes the Prussian doctrine of the state is\n  nowadays at some pains to explain that Hegel\u2019s view of the state does\n  not cohere quite congruously with the rest of his philosophy.\n\n(_a_) It may be urged against this view that the antithesis which it\nimplies between the individual and the group is fallacious. For the\ngroup is composed of individuals and it cannot have a conscious end\nexcept in the minds of the individuals who compose it. There is a degree\nof truth in speaking of the \u201cpersonality\u201d of a group so long as the\nanalogy is not pressed too far. A group may have a common thought and\nmay unite in a collective act; but to say that a group has a definite\n\u201cpersonality\u201d of its own is to carry the process of abstraction too far.\nA group attains to consciousness only in the several minds of its\nmembers. Moreover social ends must take shape in individual lives. That\nthe individual should serve a social end is true; it is equally true\nthat the social aim must be achieved in the character and experience of\nindividuals. For if they are not realised in persons, where shall they\nbe realised? If our ultimate social aims do not become effective in the\nsingle life, they remain mere abstractions, existing only in a\nspeculative thought and never reaching the point of actuality. But it\nserves us as little to insist on the converse of this view and to assert\nthat the end of society is the individual. The truth would rather appear\nto be that the individual is to reach his own end in and through a\nsociety which it is his first business to create. Personal\nself-realisation and social integration will proceed _pari passu_. The\nindividual and the group will find themselves in each other; the great\nsoul and the great society will arrive together. But from the nature of\nthe case, we must seek the clue to the character of right social aims\nthrough a study of personality, and of what is involved in its\nself-realisation.\n\n(_b_) A further objection to this view is that it subordinates\npersonality to aims that are limited and sectional. In practice it may\nmake good Germans, but almost certainly it cannot make good men. While\nit is better for a man to serve the narrowest social group than to serve\nhis self-regard, yet the exclusiveness of the social group as it is\nidentified with the state or the nation is hostile to that increasing\nsocial integration which is implied in a self-consistent sociology. The\ncurrent conceptions of the state and the nation must undergo some\nrevision if they are to be made congruous with a fruitful social polity.\nThe nation represents a stage in the social education of the race, in\nthat discipline whereby the caveman grows into a citizenship of the\nworld; and in no sense can the nation be ethically regarded as\nconstituting an adequate end for the individual, except as the nation in\nits turn is consciously seeking its own end in the service of the whole.\n\nIt is true that men have in the past generally regarded the glory and\nthe power of their particular group as an end which has the right to\ncommand their absolute devotion, and have believed that to suffer death\nin such a cause is the highest conceivable self-realisation. This does\nindeed represent a much higher ethical plane than that on which a man\nfights only for his own hand or the tiny circle of his blood kindred.\nBut the fact that this loyalty to his group has had the power to evoke\nthe highest possible sacrifice, does not prove that the glory and the\npower of the group provides a full and valid end for him as a man. In\nhis character as German or Englishman, it may appear to provide him with\nan end to which he may properly submit himself without reserve; but it\nis questionable whether he can do so without some sacrifice of his\npossibilities and obligations as a man. The propaganda of Germanism\nproduced very efficient and docile Germans; but the records of the war\nleave us little room to doubt that the process has had a mischievous\neffect upon their manhood. From the standpoint of an expanding society\npolity, education should produce individuals who are human before they\nare national. There is no system of national education which achieves\nthis result; but the ultimate logic of the prevailing educational\ntradition as we see it in the German conduct of the war should provoke\nserious misgivings and minister to a change of heart in those persons\nwho direct the policies of public education.\n\n(_c_) It is worth observing in this connection that even in Germany the\nGermanic propaganda had to trick itself out in a pseudo-universal\njargon. It had to say large-sounding things about a _Kultur-mission_ to\nthe world in order to validate itself in the eyes of the German people.\nThe claim implied in the _Kultur-mission_ as it was commonly expounded\nis so preposterous as to be self-refuting to a normal mind; but this\nsystematic diffusion of the idea proves that man has reached a point\nwhere the power and wealth of a particular group is no longer able by\nitself to evoke an effectual response in the individuals who compose the\ngroup. The fact is that civilised mankind is slowly learning to think in\nuniversal terms. Its social grasp is already faintly embracing the whole\nworld.\n\nThis circumstance tends to simplify the sociologist\u2019s task very\nmaterially. While the application of the polity which he evolves will\nrequire to take account of the peculiar traditions and institutions of\ndifferent groups, he will be free to work out his polity in terms which\nare independent of the present exclusive and conflicting aims of the\ngroups which compose the world of man. He will state the ultimate\nproblems of society in Germany in the same terms as he will state those\nin America; for he will necessarily be dealing with the one factor which\nis common to both. There cannot be a distinctive social science in\nGermany and another in America, differing from one another in essentials\nand both at the same time being true. There will be endless variety in\nthe methods by which social principles are applied by different groups;\nfor we cannot write off the past of a people and the institutions in\nwhich its history is embodied. Yet there can be no true sociology in\nEngland or in Germany unless its postulates are equally valid in\nAmerica. In other words these postulates must be drawn from a\ndisinterested study of personality. They will not concern themselves\nwith the welfare of a particular group, in whatever terms that welfare\nmay be defined. But they will be concerned with the good of the world of\ngroups because they are derived from the one fact which is common to and\nunderlies them all, and which, despite conflicting aims still binds\nhuman groups together in a permanent unity, namely, personality.\n\n\n                                   IV\n\n\nThe aims of our social polity must, therefore, be defined congruously\nwith the nature of personality; and the corresponding social processes\nmust validate themselves by bringing to those whom they affect, the\nsense of movement towards a real and recognisable personal good. It does\nnot require that all the individuals composing a society should organise\ntheir common life with the conscious and deliberate aim of personal\nself-realisation; but it is certain that the processes of a genuine\nsocial integration will be accompanied by a certain growing emotional\nsatisfaction in the persons concerned. It is generally assumed that this\nemotional satisfaction is to be described as _happiness_; but it is\nprobably something deeper and more organic than the state which this\nword connotes. Professor Dewey says that \u201cto find out what one is fitted\nto do, and to secure an opportunity to do it, is the key of\nhappiness.\u201d[9] This is, of course, true so far as it goes; but it is\nsymptomatic of the inadequate analysis which this point generally\nreceives. Obviously there are possibilities of self-realisation and\npersonal satisfaction far beyond the attainment which Professor Dewey\nindicates in this sentence. We might, perhaps, find a better definition\nof the emotional state which we should require our process of social\ndevelopment to produce, in the New Testament use of the word _joy_.\nThere the word is clearly associated with an emotional state consequent\nupon a sense of accomplishment or discovery. The golfer experiences it\nfor a passing moment after a completely successful drive from the tee.\nThe artist knows it more durably as he puts the finishing touch to what\nhe believes to be his masterpiece. Gibbon had it (not without a large\ntincture of self-admiration) on the memorable evening on which he\nfinished the \u201cDecline and Fall.\u201d It is the condition which is described\nby the word \u201cfruition;\u201d[10] the inward reaction evoked by the sense of\narrival, of fulfilment, and of course\u2014derivatively\u2014of being surely on\nthe way. It comes to a man when he knows he is on the road to personal\ncompleteness.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  _Democracy and Education_, p. 360.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  This word is so frequently mishandled that it is perhaps necessary to\n  point out that it does not mean _bearing fruit._ It is derived from\n  the Latin word _fruor_, _I enjoy_; and it describes an inward state.\n\n  Illustrative of the New Testament use of the word _joy_, the following\n  passages may be cited: John ii. 30, \u201c_This my joy is made full_\u201d\n  (spoken by John Baptist on hearing that Jesus was launched on the full\n  tide of His ministry.) John xvi. 21, \u201c... when she is delivered of the\n  child, she remembereth no more the anguish for joy that a man is born\n  unto the world.\u201d Matt. xiii. 14, \u201cIn his joy, he goeth and selleth all\n  that he hath\u201d (the merchant man who has found the pearl of great\n  price). Luke xv. 9, \u201cRejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that\n  was lost.\u201d\n\nIt is upon the question of what constitutes personal completeness that\nwe have to reach some kind of conclusion if our sociological thinking is\nto be fruitful and if we are to have the proper tests to apply to our\nsocial programmes. Obviously the society we want to produce is one which\nwill provide the conditions under which every man may rise to the full\nstature of his manhood. But what is the full-grown man? Apparently the\nonly person in the modern world who has possessed a definite and vivid\nconception of the full-grown man is Nietzsche. But Nietzsche\u2019s doctrine\nis ruled out by our democratic hypothesis. He has told us that mankind\nfalls into two broad classes of master and slave, and though he\nrecognises a considerable hierarchy of social grades, he sees,\nnevertheless, at the one end the ruling class, and at the other \u201cthe\nclass of man who thrives best when he is looked after and closely\nobserved, the man who is happy to serve not because he must, but because\nhe is what he is, the man uncorrupted by political and religious lies\nconcerning liberty, equality and fraternity, who is half conscious of\nthe abyss which separates him from his superiors, and who is happiest\nwhen he is performing those acts which are not beyond his\nlimitations.\u201d[11] Obviously the only kind of society possible on the\nNietzschean terms is an armed peace between supermen and \u201cslave\nmorality\u201d for the rest. The will to power soon or late issues in\nanarchy. The strength of the position of Nietzsche lies in the theoretic\njustification it provides for the native human bias which leads to the\nquest of personal ascendency, and the struggle for possession. The\nresult of this tendency has been the constant subordination and\nexploitation of the weak by the strong, and a ceaseless scrimmage among\nthe strong in which the weak are the pawns; and if this struggle has not\nbrought about the Nietzschean equilibrium, it is due, presumably, to the\nenervating influence of Christianity. Yet, here, in this self-regarding\nbias we have the original source of all our social chaos; but the\ndisorder is not to be overcome by inhibiting this impulse. It is\nsometimes supposed that human nature is incurably and permanently\nself-regarding and anarchic; but this is not true. It is indeed true\nthat human nature does take easily to the practice of self-assertion as\nagainst others; this is the penalty of our inheritance from the \u201cape and\nthe tiger.\u201d But it is mere folly to suppose that man has to carry this\nsorrowful entail in perpetuity. It is fastened on him largely by reason\nof the external circumstances of his life, a vicious social heredity\nwhich has put a premium upon power and pushfulness, and an atmosphere of\ncompetition in which capacity and cunning win the prize. It is, however,\nnot impossible to communicate to men a social vision which is able to\ndivert the natural energies of the human spirit into more generous\nchannels. This, did they but know it, is the peculiar vocation of the\npreacher and the teacher.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  A. M. Ludovici, _Nietszche_, pp. 85f.\n\nMr. Bertrand Russell has recently laid just emphasis upon the supremacy\nof impulse in determining human conduct; and has pointed out the\ndistinction between impulses which make for life and those which make\nfor death. William Blake had a somewhat similar view. What Blake in \u201cThe\nMarriage of Heaven and Hell\u201d calls _energy_ appears to be that vital\nstress which expresses itself in our impulses, and which in the form of\n\u201cpoetic\u201d energy is the source of creative art. In Blake\u2019s psychology,\nthis _energy_ only works out healthily and fruitfully when it is\nco-ordinated on the one side with Reason and on the other by Desire; and\nhe traces our human troubles to an undue ascendency of one or other of\nthese two balancing principles. When Reason prevails over Desire, it\nimposes disastrous restraint upon energy; but when the tables are\nturned, the ascendency of Desire leads to the \u201cvegetated life.\u201d Blake\u2019s\nanalysis has much to commend it; and it appears to supply the necessary\ncomplement to Mr. Russell\u2019s. For our impulses, whether they make for\nlife or death are the same impulses\u2014the difference in their result\nspringing from a difference in their direction, and in the conditions\nunder which they operate.\n\nThe old psychological analysis of the mind into will, intellect,\naffections, and so forth has served its turn; and for purposes of social\nbuilding we must betake ourselves rather to an analysis of Blake\u2019s\n_energy_ or Mr. Russell\u2019s _impulses_. M. Bergson has shown us how the\n\u201c_elan vitale_\u201d has in the course of its onward march split up again and\nagain, and in so doing has set afoot new lines of development and\nvariation; and we have for result the infinite wealth of plant and\nanimal form which fills the earth. The primitive urge of life was\nseemingly a bundle of tendencies, which were released, one at this\npoint, and another at that, under the stress of the circumstances\nencountered on the way. In the same way the _energy_, the vital stress\nof personality is an organic complex of impulses, each of which has\nreleased and shaped itself conformably to the conditions in which the\nhuman spirit has found itself in the process of growth. In this complex\nof impulses, it is possible to discern three main strands:\n\n1. _The Impulse of Self-preservation._ This has to do with the desire\nand purpose to maintain life; and its primitive form was determined by\nthe necessity of procuring food, clothing and shelter. Its\ncharacteristic activity was that of discovering and adapting the means\nwhich were available to the end of sustaining life; and out of this grew\nagriculture, weaving, housebuilding and a range of operations which grew\nin number and elaboration as the requirements of life increased. Here is\nthe origin of what Mr. Veblen has called _the Instinct of Workmanship_.\n\n2. _The Impulse of Reproduction._ This in its elemental form expresses\nitself in the begetting of children. But as man became more familiar\nwith the objects round about him, in the course of handling them for the\nends of self-preservation, this impulse became associated with the\ninstinct of workmanship, and man began to attempt to reproduce himself\nin other media than his flesh. He came to do certain work which was not\nrequired by the exigencies of his physical subsistence; and this work he\ndid\u2014as it were\u2014for the joy of doing it. He attempted to express himself\nupon such materials as were capable of receiving his impress; and his\ndelight in his handicraft became the beginning of Art. Presently he\nlearnt to set line and colour and sound in combinations that pleased\nhim, and in which he was conscious of the joy of fatherhood. This is\n_the Instinct of Creativeness_. It is not always perceived that there is\na very profound distinction to be drawn between the workmanlike and the\ncreative activities. Miss Helen Marot appears to assume (in her book\n_The Creative Impulse in Industry_), that a democratic form of\nco-operation, and an understanding of industrial processes will satisfy\nthe creative instinct in industry. It is difficult to see how this can\nhappen under the conditions of the modern large-scale machine industry.\nMiss Marot rightly insists that the creative impulse is not merely an\naffair of individual self-expression. Nevertheless, it is only possible\nto a group when the group is comparatively small, and every member is in\nactive touch with the whole process. The instinct of workmanship is of a\nroutine productive character, the instinct of creativeness is original\nand _reproductive_. Nothing on this earth can make our highly\nspecialised machine processes into opportunities of self-expression.\nThis, however, does not mean that the machine industry has no place in\nthe future social order.\n\n3. _The Impulse of Association._\u2014Man has always lived with men; and\nthere is perhaps nothing so distinctive of human nature as its faculty\nfor association. We are so made that we only find ourselves and each\nother as we live together in societies, that we only find ourselves as\nwe find one another. The exchanges of love and friendship, the riches of\nfellowship\u2014these are the most fruitful experiences of life. \u201cWe are\nmembers of one another\u201d; and are fulfilled in each other. Our mutual\nneed has released in us _the Instinct of Sociability_.\n\nThe weakness of this kind of analysis is that it appears to untwine\nthreads that cannot be untwined in practice and never are separated in\nexperience. Human instincts do not operate independently; they blend\ninto each other continuously and inextricably in countless ways. We have\nseen how the reproductive impulse fused with the instinct of workmanship\ninto an impulse toward creative art. But the debt has been repaid in the\nintroduction of requirements of beauty into the exercise of workmanship.\nIn the era of craftsmanship, the two impulses were very intimately\nblended, workmanship and creativeness going hand in hand in the erection\nof stately minsters, or in the making of harness for the squire\u2019s\nhorses. It is due to the development of the machine that these two\nimpulses have been so widely parted in our time, to the immense injury\nof both; and it is one of the tasks, perhaps the chief of the tasks,\nfacing us in the future to restore them to something of their old-time\nintimacy. Of this restoration, the great modern prophet is William\nMorris, who saw hope neither for the worker nor for the artist except in\na closer association of industry with beauty, and who laid the\nfoundation of this revived association by his own pioneer work as a\nhouse-decorator. This does not require, as some suppose, the scrapping\nof the machine industry, even though that were possible; it only\nrequires that we understand the true place of the machine industry and\nput it there. Similarly, the instinct of sociability coalesced with\nthose of workmanship and creativeness. The signal instance of this\ncombination is to be found in the spirit of the medi\u00e6val Guilds; but\nthere are other instances in plenty. Most of the great human\nachievements in thought, religion and art, have had a social origin, in\nschools of philosophers and prophets, in groups of artists and the like,\nand conversely new departures in thought, religion and art have become\nthe _foci_ of new groups.\n\nOf all this the moral would seem to be that we must treat the _energy_\nof personality, its characteristic outgoing, as a single undivided\nindivisible stream; yet we must recognise it also as a stream containing\na certain range of ingredients. Therefore, what we shall require of our\nideal society is that it shall generate an atmosphere and an environment\nin which the constituent ingredients of personal _energy_ shall find\nopportunity of full, co-ordinated and parallel development. It will be a\nsociety in which the instinct of workmanship, creativeness and\nsociability will grow side by side and hand in hand toward \u201cthe perfect\nman, of the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.\u201d\n\nOf this society then, we may say, that its marks will be that first\nevery man shall have the opportunity of a secure and sufficient physical\nsubsistence, second, that its work will press upward to the plane of\nart, and that its sociability will grow into vital and purposeful\nfellowship. By these tests we shall judge the soundness of democratic\nprogress.\n\nOur analysis has hitherto taken account only of the common man without\nreference to natural divergencies of genius or capacity. Professor\nGeddes has lately been emphasising Comte\u2019s doctrine of history as an\ninterplay of the temporal and spiritual powers, and his classification\nof the four Social types\u2014Chiefs, People, Emotionals and Intellectuals.\nMr. Arnold Bennett found men on the Clyde sorting themselves out into\nOrganisers, Workers, Energisers and Initiators, which classification, as\nProfessor Geddes justly points out, corresponds closely to Comte\u2019s.\nThese types, however, reduce themselves to two, namely those chiefly\nanimated by the impulse of action, and those chiefly animated by the\nimpulse of reflection. Of course, these types shade off imperceptibly\ninto one another, because the impulses which give them their peculiar\ncolour are native to and present in universal human nature. And while it\nis certain that nature will see to it that mankind will be delivered\nfrom the doom of a dead uniformity, it is nevertheless necessary that we\nshould aim at the full development of both the active and reflective\nimpulses in every man. Would that all the Lord\u2019s people were prophets!\nHitherto, we have considered man as actuated mainly by the impulse of\naction; but the release and development of the _impulse of reflection_\nis essential to the growth of society. For the experience which is the\nsequel of action is condemned to sterility except it be reflected upon.\nReflection upon experience is the appointed guide of further action. We\nmust, therefore, add to our tests of sound democratic progress, a\nfourth, namely, that it shall be of a kind to stimulate and encourage\nreflection. It must, that is, include a method of education whereby\nevery man shall as far as possible become capable of independent thought\nand sound judgment.\n\nOut of all this emerges immediately one certain conclusion. The kind of\nsociety which encourages creative self-expression, independent judgment\nand a living expanding fellowship must necessarily be conceived and\ncreated in freedom. For to these essential human impulses, freedom is\nthe very breath of life. The initial problem of sociology is, therefore,\nthe achievement of freedom; upon that foundation, and that only, can it\nbuild for eternity.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter III.\n                         THE PECUNIARY STANDARD\n\n    \u201cThe deeper cause of the oppression of the factory operative and of\n    the terrible degradation and pauperisation of the agricultural\n    labourer, was not the mere fact that machines were invented which\n    multiplied the efficiency of labour, but the previous\n    monopolisation, in the period of the Renaissance and the\n    Reformation, and during the earlier part of the eighteenth century,\n    of the land and of education. The great change then took place in\n    the current philosophy of life, which made the whole of the\n    governing classes of England, with exceptions practically\n    negligible, accept with avidity the idea merely more clearly\n    formulated by political economists, that the highest duty of man was\n    to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market.\u201d\n\n                                                         PATRICK GEDDES.\n\n                                   I\n\n\nTHE saying that \u201cman shall not live by bread alone\u201d has been in familiar\ncirculation so long and on authority so good that it is remarkable how\nslightly it has affected the general conduct of life. Bread and the\nthings symbolised by bread in the saying are and must remain the first\ncare of men, but they are first only in the sense of being preliminary,\nthe necessary conditions of the main and supreme business of life. Yet\nmodern civilisation as a whole has shown no manifest sign of a\nconception of life which requires that the chief interest and energy of\nmen should be directed to ends of a higher order than that of\nmaintaining physical existence. This fact is to some extent obscured\nfrom us by the elaborate development of commercial organisation, so that\nmultitudes of men are engaged in enterprises and vocations apparently so\nremoved from the actual business of clothing, feeding and housing other\nmen that they are not aware of being connected with it at all. Yet the\nentire structure of commerce rests upon the requirement that certain\nprimary physical needs of men must be met. That men shall be fed,\nclothed, sheltered, provided with heat and light,\u2014here is the source of\ncommerce. Around these primary needs certain other demands have\ngathered\u2014for elaboration in food and clothing, comfort in the home, and\nthe like; and a multitude of commercial activities of a secondary kind\nhave been set afoot and added to the sufficiently complex business of\nproviding society with the first necessities of life. This secondary\nlife of commerce is mainly parasitical and feeds upon the other, and its\nvitality depends as much upon the success with which demands are\ningeniously created as upon the power to produce the supply profitably.\nAdded to this vast business of production is an enormous machinery of\ndistribution; and in these or in financial operations, originally\nderived from them but now largely controlling them, we are all more or\nless directly engaged. There are a few professional occupations which\nremain outside this classification, which (to use Carlyle\u2019s phrase) \u201care\nboarded and lodged on the industry\u201d of the community to which they\nbelong,\u2014the doctor, the clergyman, the lawyer, the teacher, the actor,\nthe artist, the journalist; yet so strong and imperious is the\ncommercial tradition that the non-productive vocations are required to\njustify their existence by providing the inspiration, the health, the\nrecreation and the knowledge necessary to the effectual and prosperous\nworking of the economic machine. Society seems (outside the \u201cleisure\nclass\u201d) feverishly engaged in keeping itself alive.\n\nYet if its only purpose were to keep itself alive, it would not need to\nbe so busy. But to the first impulse of production and exchange has been\nadded another interest, that of making profit and accumulating wealth.\nIn the process of exchange the opportunity was found of securing a\nmargin of personal advantage; and gradually this margin of personal\nadvantage has become the chief incentive to commercial enterprise. It\ndoes not belong to our purpose to trace the history of this change; it\nis enough that we should observe the fact that the profit-seeking motive\nhas become the real driving force of modern commerce, and that\nhistorical circumstances, such as the introduction of large scale\nprocesses, the world-wide ramifications of commerce through improved\nfacilities of travel and transportation, the invention of the telephone\nand the telegraph, the growth of trusts, combines, and monopolies have\nmade possible fabulous increments and accumulations of profit.[12]\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  For an analysis of the process by which simple barter has grown into\n  the modern intricate system of commerce, with its fine flower in \u201cbig\n  finance,\u201d see Thorstein Veblen, _The Instinct of Workmanship_, chap.\n  V., VI., VIII. More summarily in Geddes and Slater, _Ideas at War_,\n  Chap. III., IV., V. For a useful analysis of the current commercial\n  organisation see Cole, _Self-Government in Industry_, pp. 178, 179.\n\nThe effect of this upon a generation habituated to the profit-making\ntemper has been to set up the multi-millionaire as the type of\nperfection toward which aspiring youth should be encouraged to strive.\nWe go into business not to feed and clothe each other, but to make\nmoney; and since from the nature of the case only comparatively few of\nus have the capacity and the opportunity to become commercial supermen,\nthe rest of us remain in business to feed and clothe ourselves, or (as\nwe say) to \u201cmake a living.\u201d Commerce, which owes its origin to social\nneed, has almost wholly lost the social motive. If we are not making\nmoney ourselves, we hire ourselves out as the money-making tools of\nothers; and while some of us aim at larger profits, the rest of us hope\nfor larger wages. The economic motive is universal, and it expresses\nitself exclusively in the pecuniary standard. \u201cThe Almighty Dollar\u201d is\nmore than a gratuitous exercise in satire, it describes the spirit of an\nage.\n\nMuch has been heard since the war began of the profiteer, on both sides\nof the Atlantic, and on both sides of the quarrel. But the profiteer is\nnot a phenomenon peculiar to war-time. Like the poor, he is always with\nus; the war has but served to reveal him more vividly in his proper\ncharacter. His peculiar crime is that he makes the extremity of his\ncountry the opportunity of private gain. But what he does in time of\nwar, he does no less sedulously in time of peace. His sin takes a deeper\ndye in war-time because the national need is greater, and his\nopportunity is much enlarged. Yet the story of how \u201cbig business\u201d has\nendeavoured, and has largely succeeded in the endeavour to control the\nlegislative machinery of the nations in its own interests in normal\ntimes, is a very deplorable and shameful chapter in modern history. It\nis, of course, no new thing that legislatures should show themselves\ntender to economic interests; there is even yet no legislature in the\nworld which is not more careful of the rights of property than of the\nwelfare of men\u2014except, perhaps, in Russia. By a curious paradox, those\nwho most jealously guarded the sanctities of property, were once the\nimplacable critics of commercial enterprise, but that phase has passed\naway. Landed aristocracies, no less than bourgeois manufacturers, have\nbeen so seduced by the lure of large and swift gain that the old line of\ndemarcation has disappeared; and the doctrine of property rights has\nbeen invoked to secure the sanctity of the capitalist system of\nindustry. The \u201cgoverning classes\u201d in Europe and America, who to-day are\nthe economically powerful, have become an unholy alliance which exploits\nthe state in the interests of trade. It is not the English brewers and\npublicans only who say, \u201cour trade, our politics,\u201d though these\nparticular people may be the only ones who have the effrontery to say so\nin public. It is always the profiteer\u2019s cry; and whenever in the past a\npiece of social legislation has been introduced in England, he raises\nthe scare cry that \u201ccapital will leave the country,\u201d which simply means\nthat he esteems his profits more highly than he does his country. He is\nthe author of the inspiring doctrine that \u201ctrade follows the flag\u201d;\nwhich prostitutes national idealism to the sordid business of\nprofiteering; and so deeply has this poison entered into our life that\nChristian missions to the non-Christian world are frequently commended\non the ground that they do pioneering work for the trader.\n\nAll this is, of course, trite and commonplace; and ever since the early\npart of the nineteenth century there has been a continuous and\nincreasing note of protest against the modern commercial doctrine of\ncompetitive profit-making. It must, however, be admitted that the\nprotest has not gained much headway against the evil; on the contrary\nthe evil has, during this same period, grown by leaps and bounds, so\nthat the earlier twentieth century witnessed its supreme achievements.\nMr. John D. Rockefeller is the tragical culmination of the process in\nour generation; and there is no reason to suppose that he is the last,\nor greatest figure of the line of Cr\u0153sus. Nor will the subordination of\nlife to the business of pecuniary gain be effectually stayed until we\nseriously take in hand the profiteering ideology which governs all our\nthought and conduct. The main ingredient in the social heredity of this\ngeneration is the profit-making impulse; that is the atmosphere which it\nhas breathed and which constitutes its habitual universe of discourse.\nArt and religion alike have been infected with the spirit; the current\nrepute of an artist is fixed by the prices which his pictures command;\nand the prosperity of a Christian congregation is judged by its\nstatistical returns. It is required of education that it shall minister\nprimarily to commercial efficiency; and the outcry against the study of\nthe classics, and the demand for a more exclusively scientific and\ntechnical education reflect the essentially commercial orientation of\nour educational outlook. It is, perhaps, the most deplorable aspect of\nthis latter tendency that it so often becomes vocal in persons whose\nacademic training should have provided them with a more discriminating\nview of life. Even in the universities, which should be the impregnable\ncitadels of spiritual idealism, there is an inclination to capitulate to\nthe monstrous and deadly doctrine that the end of national life is\ncommercial supremacy.\n\nCommerce originated in social need and should be a social service; nor\nindeed has its perversion to profit-making prevented it from rendering\nsubstantial services to society. Apart from its provision of the\nnecessities of life, many of its inventions have added much to the\nwealth of life independently of their immediate purposes. The unique\nfacilities for travel which we moderns enjoy owe their origins in the\nfirst instance to the demand for better commercial transport.\nStephenson\u2019s first locomotive was intended to haul coal trucks. The\nincreasing socialisation of life in our time owes much to the economic\nmotive that has popularised the telegraph and the telephone; and the\nsupreme achievement of Mr. Henry Ford is not a miracle of standardised\nproduction, but the contribution which his car has made to the\nsocialisation of the farmer\u2019s life. Our knowledge of the earth\u2019s surface\nand its peoples, and through this, one of the foundations of the coming\ninternationalism, we owe greatly to the enterprise of the trader. For a\nhundred great services beyond its ministry to the elementary human needs\nof food and clothing, we are debtors to commerce and to those merchant\nventurers in many ages who laid its broad modern foundations. Yet just\nbecause we acknowledge a manifest debt even to profiteering commercial\nenterprise, it is the more necessary that we should assail its modern\nascendency over life, and its own perversion to individual aims, and\npoint out the havoc which its more modern developments have wrought. It\nwould be foolish and undiscriminating to say that it is the sole source\nof our social confusion, but it is simple truth to say that it has\nbecome its chief direct occasion; and the result is to be traced to the\ncircumstances which have changed commerce from its essential function as\na great social service to a scramble for private gain. The restoration\nof commerce to its own proper place and office is bound up with a\nrecovery of a true view of life as a whole, with a new understanding of\nthose things other and greater than bread by which it is ordained that\nmen shall live.\n\n\n                                   II\n\n\nThe paramountcy of the economic motive is no modern phenomenon, and it\nwould be a mistake to identify it exclusively with the modern commercial\ncivilisation. Its modern beginnings are no doubt to be found in the\nappearance of the small merchant class in the era of craftsmanship; and\nthe difference between him and the merchant prince of the twentieth\ncentury is mainly a difference of scale\u2014this difference being chiefly\ndue to the high mobility of property when it assumes the form of money,\nand the increased facilities for mobilising it through the development\nof the credit system and the improvement in the means of communication.\nThe fundamental impulses and instincts which determine the social order\nare broadly identical throughout history. That is why Marx\u2019 economic\ninterpretation of history is probably the most luminous and fruitful\nclue to the course of human affairs that historical study has yet\nyielded to us. We are not justified in assuming (as some have done) that\nit is the only valid clue; still less are those disciples of Marx\njustified who have developed his theory of historical interpretation\ninto the metaphysical dogma of economic determinism. That economic\nfactors have controlled the general drift of human affairs in the past\ndoes not necessarily mean that they are predestined to do so in\nperpetuity.\n\nYet even those who most vehemently denounce the existing profit-making\norganisation of society are still obsessed by the notion that social\ntransformation is chiefly an affair of economic revolution. Their\nthought appears to run wholly within the economic circle. It is in some\nrespects the strangest paradox of modern times that the Russian people\nwith their long and unique tradition of spirituality should have been so\ncompletely captured (to all appearance) by the doctrinaire materialism\nof the Marxian school and have accepted the view that the Kingdom of\nHeaven comes by a proletarian capture of economic power. The\ncircumstance is, of course, capable of explanation, for in Russia, as\nelsewhere, political power has gone with economic power; and the Russian\nrevolutionary knew what the Frenchman of 1789 did not know, namely, that\nno political revolution could be complete or permanent which was not an\neconomic revolution at the same time. That, therefore, the Russian\nrevolution should have been primarily economic is not strange\u2014since Marx\nhad lived and written in the interval between 1789 and 1917; but it\nremains a somewhat singular fact that the spiritual idealism of Feodor\nDostoievsky and Lyof Tolstoi have been so little manifest during these\nlast surprising months. This preoccupation with economic change is\ncharacteristic of the attitude of those everywhere who are most urgent\nin their endeavour after social transformation. The advocates of the\nNational Guild Movement are never weary of reiterating that political\npower belongs to those who wield economic power, and of urging that the\nworkers should make themselves masters of the economic resources of\nsociety as the necessary preliminary of laying hold of the political\npower.[13] This may be a sound counsel of immediate strategy; but it is\nfull of disaster if it is treated as a permanent principle of social\npractice. For it leaves us still within the vicious circle where the\npurely economic interests are paramount. Whensoever we consent to the\nstatement that the one thing needful to society is a more equitable\ndistribution of the wealth which its industry produces, we are still\nwithin the same hopeless universe of discourse. A more equitable\ndistribution of wealth is needed; so much is obvious. But having secured\nit, what then? Will the City of God then come down from heaven? Or are\nwe content with the hope of a redeemed society which goes no farther\nthan a vision of a community of healthy and contented animals? It is\ncertain that, so long as our thought of social regeneration moves\nchiefly within the existing framework of wealth production and wealth\ndistribution, our effort will create a range of new social problems of\nan acute and probably less soluble kind. That we should labour to\nhumanise and to socialise the existing commercial and industrial\norganisation goes without saying; but there is no certainty that after\nwe have done so, the same economic pre-occupation will not still fill\nour minds. It is not enough to work for change that only transfers the\npower to produce and to enjoy wealth from the hands of a small minority\nto those of the great majority. That is indeed only change, and not\nnecessarily progress. There will be fewer people with more butter on\ntheir bread than they need; and fewer people with less than they need;\nand that will be something gained. But it does not necessarily follow\nthat we will not still be chiefly concerned about bread and butter, and\nwhatever elaborations upon that simple theme that our enlarged resources\nmay tempt us to seek.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  This is not to be taken as meaning that the National Guild Movement is\n  destitute of a spiritual outlook. On the contrary, see, for instance,\n  the last chapter of S. G. Hobson\u2019s _Guild Principles in War and\n  Peace_.\n\nThis is not in any sense an argument for spending less energy upon the\nurgent task of accomplishing the radical economic changes which social\nwell-being plainly requires; it is rather a renewed plea that we should\nask ourselves whether we are moving conformably with a vision of man and\nlife as a whole. Whether we rank as reformists or revolutionists we\nshould endeavour to see the evils we hate and the manner and matter of\nthe remedy in the light of a philosophy of comprehensive and coherent\nhuman good. The scheme of social insurance established in Great Britain\nbefore the war was a response to a definite social need; but it is now\nno longer open to question, that both in respect of its content, and the\nmethod of its institution, its promoters failed to appreciate the\nprecise nature and conditions of the need; and the final solution of the\nproblem which evoked the measure has been confused and retarded. And\ngenerally, so long as we think exclusively of social advance in economic\nterms, out of relation to their context in life, we are subordinating\nthe greater thing to the lesser, and are in continual danger of\npostponing the greater thing into an impossible future. We become and\nremain virtual opportunists (even though we call ourselves\nrevolutionaries!), only moving spasmodically and incoherently within the\nvery circle of institutions and tendencies which have wrought our\npresent confusion, until we have gained that social perspective in which\nthe economic requirements of life take their proper place.\n\nProperly understood, this place is a relatively humble one. In our\nanalysis of personality in the previous chapter, four major instincts\nwere defined. The first, the instinct of self-preservation has to do\nwith the maintenance of physical life; the second, the third and the\nfourth, as they appear in their full development, are mainly concerned\nwith the spiritual expression of life. The first is the necessary basis\nof the other three\u2014the foundation, as it were, upon which they build;\nbut the real significance and joy of life are associated predominantly\nwith the impulses of creativeness, sociability, and reflection. Now, the\neconomic business of life has to do almost exclusively with the instinct\nof self-preservation; its function ends with the provision of the\nconditions and materials of a wholesome physical existence. Yet to-day,\nthe economic interests absorb virtually the whole of life; the ultimate\ninterests of life\u2014that range of things which we may broadly call\n_spiritual_, if they are not subordinated to and absorbed in the\neconomic motive, are consigned to the odds and ends of time which we are\nable to spare from the sovereign business of making a fortune or making\na living. The distinctive human interests of religion, thought, art, and\nrecreation are no more than occasional alternatives which enable us to\nsome extent to repair the wear and tear of the ceaseless economic drive.\nThe real revolution we need is the general conviction that to put it\nroughly\u2014as the kitchen is to the home, so the economic interest is to\nthe rest of life. The kitchen is indispensable to the home; and there\nare exceptional persons to whom it is the most important part of the\nhome. Yet it is no more than a strictly subordinate part of the home.\nWhen we have finished with the business of procuring and eating bread,\nthen the real business of life begins. It is indeed necessary that the\nkitchen should be in tune with home, and that the work of producing and\ndistributing the primary necessities of life should be organised so as\nto be consistent with the spiritual realisation of life. We can, of\ncourse, no longer admit a dualism of material and spiritual; for the\nspiritual may and must infuse the material and subordinate it to its own\nends. To-day the material has made the spiritual ancillary to itself;\nand the soul is the drudge of the body. The radical problem of the\nfuture is how to reverse this position and to enthrone the spiritual.\n\nWhat the spiritual realisation of life implies we can no more than dimly\nguess. We may speak of love and art; but the potentialities of social\nand creative achievement in human nature have yet to be explored. A\nmaterial civilisation has largely kept mankind in a state of arrested\ndevelopment on every side save that which has to do with the conditions\nof its physical life. Psychology is busily, though not yet very\nsuccessfully, explaining that hidden world of life which lies beyond the\nfrontiers of consciousness; there are (and this is virtually all we can\nsay) vast possibilities and powers latent within us of which we have\nonly occasional and indistinct intimations. We have tested the power and\nthe range of those endowments of which we are already aware; and the\ntriumphs of art and science show how nobly and richly our nature is\nequipped. Nevertheless, all that art and science have yet accomplished\nare but the promise of that glory that is still to be. But the full\nrelease of all our powers\u2014known and unknown\u2014is contingent upon a social\nsetting more richly human, that is to say, more spiritual in temper, and\noutlook, than mankind has hitherto known. This social setting will come\nwhen we make up our minds to break the tyranny of the economic motive\nand to deliver life from the infamous despotism of things. No man knows\nto what heights of creative achievement and personal self-realisation we\nmay not attain when once the economic preoccupation which swallows our\nbest energies is dissipated, and we are free to become all that we have\nit in us to be, when powers of fellowship and creation now inert and\nunknown are awakened in us, and we press on to those peaks of attainment\nof which prophets have spoken and which angels have desired to see.\n\n\n                                  III\n\n\nThe task before us, therefore, is the deliverance of life from the\nascendency of the economic motive; and at bottom this means the\nredemption of commerce from the obsession of profit-making. In other\nwords, commerce must be conceived and conducted as a social service. It\nis true that in the early days of modern commercialism, the principle of\ncompetition was regarded as the heaven-sent panacea for human ills. Men\nbecame dithyrambic about _laissez-faire_, and though they perforce\nadmitted that the growth of the commercial system had caused certain\nglaring evils, yet they maintained that these were no more than the\ninevitable accidents of a process of readjustment. Let the system only\nwork out its inherent logic to the end, and there will be a golden age\nfor everybody. The system has had a fair trial; and so far from\nachieving the results confidently predicted by its advocates, it has\nfailed hopelessly to provide even a tolerably secure and sufficient\nsubsistence for the great mass of men. It is indeed difficult to see how\nit could be otherwise or how those who uphold it could have expected a\ndifferent result. There is no doubt that the system has stimulated the\nproduction of wealth; and this its protagonists accurately foresaw; but\nthey apparently supposed that the distribution of wealth would look\nafter itself. It had indeed done so, in a fashion which has deprived the\nmass of toilers of that security of physical subsistence which is a\nnecessary condition of liberty and of the liberation of the spiritual\nimpulses. So far from adequately fulfilling the elementary services of\nproviding men with a steady and reasonable supply of the necessities of\nlife, it has made life itself insecure and precarious.\n\nHow this situation has come about may be stated summarily in a few\nwords: (_a_) The pursuit of profit tends to lower the cost of\nproduction, while it raises the price of the product. Chief among the\ncosts of production is the payment of labour,\u2014that is to say, wages. The\nresult of this tendency is to depress the income of the worker and at\nthe same time to raise his expenditure and since there is no limit fixed\nat either end the standard of life is in constant danger of being\nlowered beneath the point of reasonable subsistence. It often happens\nthat wages show an increase over given periods of time; but it is an\nincrease of money-wages and not of real wages; since the period of\nwage-increase is generally also a period of a disproportionate increase\nin the price of commodities. Some check has been placed upon the\ndecrease of wages by Trade Union action; but this is offset by the\npartial elimination of competition in the markets through the growth of\nTrusts and Combines, and the consequent upward tendency of prices.\n\n(_b_) This insecurity is accentuated by the fact that the maintenance of\nprofits frequently require a check upon productivity in order to tighten\nthe market by reducing the supply of commodities. It is estimated that\nin America this interference with production has kept productivity down\nanywhere between twenty-five and fifty per cent. below its possible\nmaximum. This obstruction is effected by such devices as the diminution\nof working hours, dismissal of workmen, and periodic stoppages of work.\n\n(_c_) A further element of insecurity is to be found in the circumstance\nthat labour is itself treated as a commodity, subject to market\nfluctuations, its price governed by the relation of supply to demand,\nlike any other commodity. In order to prevent an undue rise in the price\nof labour, the industrial system has evolved a _reserve of labour_,\ncommonly called unemployment. In normal times, there is in every trade a\nchronic margin\u2014varying in amount\u2014of unemployed men; and no man knows\nwhen his turn may come to fall into the reserve. It naturally happens\nthat the less efficient man goes first\u2014the man least equipped to face\nthe demoralising effects of unemployment. The result is that he\ndegenerates into an unemployable and swells the volume of the human\ndriftwood of our social order.\n\n(_d_) Insecurity arises also from the unquestioned and unchallenged\nauthority of the owners or representatives of the invested capital,\nagainst whose verdicts there is no appeal. The worker is at the absolute\nmercy of the master or the foreman; and he can usually find work only at\nthe sacrifice of his freedom. Should he display any signs of restiveness\nand be dismissed, the growth of Trusts and Employers\u2019 Associations has\nmade it possible to deny him employment within the area over which such\nbodies exercise control.\n\nThis takes no account of the dehumanising and despiritualising effects\nof the machine industry under the conditions of the profit system. That\nis an aggravation of the situation which must be considered in another\nconnection. Here we are concerned to note the failure of commerce under\na profit system to provide the conditions of security of life for the\nmass of men. And not the least disastrous consequence of this failure is\nthe deep social schism it has engendered. It has created the criminal\nantithesis of great wealth and great poverty in great cities, and the\nvirtually open warfare between capital and labour. The investor and the\nemployer are bent on larger dividends upon the outlay of capital; the\nworker is seeking a larger return upon his outlay of labour. In the\nstruggle the worker is at a disadvantage. For while capital and labour,\nthe producers, are fighting, the casualties of the struggle are chiefly\namong the consumers. But the consumers are mostly composed of the\nlabourer and the tenement-dweller, that is to say, the working-class\nitself. So that the worker in the struggle is divided against himself.\nIf he is successful in his struggle for higher wages, the advantage is\nlost through the increased price of commodities; for the employer pays\nthe higher wages out of higher prices. In the issue, the worker is\ncaught in the vicious circle of a continuous struggle against himself,\nwhich to dependence and insecurity adds an unending confusion.\n\nNo question is here raised as to the legitimacy of profit; we are\nconcerned only to point out the consequences of a system which permits\nan unlimited expansion of profits; and it should be clear that the\nredemption of commerce and its restoration to the status of the social\nservice it should be, are to be wrought first by imposing a limit upon\nprofit-making.\n\nThis requires two measures:\n\nFirst, the production and distribution of the necessities of life should\nbe definitely placed outside the sphere of competition. The British\nLabour Party in its memorandum on reconstruction, proposes that the\ncoal-supply shall be so organised that the ordinary householder shall be\nable to have his coal delivered at his door, at a uniform price all over\nthe country and all through the year\u2014just as he buys postage stamps. But\nthe principle should be extended to all the essential commodities.\nFlour, milk, coal, meat, wool, cotton and their immediate derivatives\nshould be withdrawn from the circle of competitive commerce, and be no\nmore subject to the fluctuations of a market manipulated in the interest\nof profit-making than the water-supply is. There is no reason why the\nsupply of these primary articles should not be so regulated as to bear a\nreasonably constant proportion to the demand. For those who argue that\nthis would dislocate the customary economic processes, a two-fold answer\nmay be returned. First, that the customary economic processes deserve to\nbe dislocated; and second, that the only possible justification of the\ncustomary economic processes is derived from an economic theory which is\nno longer relevant to the facts of life. In point of actual fact, the\nstandardisation of prices has become in recent years increasingly\ncommon\u2014the elimination of competition by the formation of trusts and\ncombines has had the result of fixing prices with a considerable\nrigidity; and during the war, it has been done on a very large scale. In\nneither case is it suggested by any one that it has had a deleterious\neffect upon commerce. In this proposal for the standardisation of\nprices, there is nothing new; it is simply a revival of the medi\u00e6val\ncustom of the _justum pretium_\u2014according to which buyers and sellers and\nmarket authorities together determined a price for each commodity which\nshould be equally fair to the producer and the consumer; and a return to\nthis practice\u2014with such modifications as modern conditions require\u2014is\nopposed only by those who still hold to the curious illusion that Adam\nSmith spoke the last word upon this subject.[14]\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Revelations of after-war profiteering in Great Britain and America are\n  creating a definite demand for standardisation of prices. And if we\n  are to have Wages Boards, why not Prices Boards?\n\nSecond: A limit should be placed upon profits, dividends, incomes and\nfortunes. This may be done by taxation, inheritance duties and other\ndevices already familiar to the managers of public finance. We should\nagree to make it cease to be worth anyone\u2019s while to exploit the public,\nby fixing rigid bounds to the accumulation of private wealth; and this\nwe may do with a good conscience. For all wealth is socially produced;\nand the society which produces it has the first claim upon it. This is a\nposition which can be challenged only by those who still hold that the\npossession of property confers upon its possessors a \u201cdivine right\u201d to\ntake the lion\u2019s share of the wealth produced by the industry of the\nwhole community.\n\nIt will be maintained that measures of this kind will take away the\nincentive to industry and commercial progress. But it may be pointed out\nin reply that the economic end of British life so far from being\ndisastrously undermined by wholesale interference with economic laws\nduring the war, seems to have been in a rather healthier condition than\nit had ever known previously. Profits were limited; prices were\nstandardised; the old competitive basis was largely suspended. Virtually\nall those incentives of self-regard and gain which we have been told\nwere essential to economic development were put out of business. Yet\nproduction reached an unprecedented point, both in quality and in\namount. Another incentive was indeed operative; but this incentive was\nnot of the personal kind. The peril of the nation in the great hazard of\nwar evoked a social solidarity which proved a more powerful incentive to\nindustry than the self-regarding instincts ever provided. This is our\nsufficient answer to those who still hold to the cynical superstition\nthat the only motives on which we can rely in dealing with human nature\nare those of selfishness. What is needed to stimulate effort and\ndevotion is the sense of direct participation in a great social task;\nand there is no reason to suppose that the systematic education of a\ncouple of generations may not make this same social idealism the normal\ndriving force of national effort. It is no doubt true that, as things\nare, only such a challenge to patriotic feeling as war brings, could\nachieve such a result; but it is our business to discover the stimuli\nwhich will make this same intensity of devotion a permanent fact.\n\nBut, it may be said, the economic conditions of wartime are abnormal,\nand economic \u201claws\u201d must be disregarded in the stress of national\ncrisis. This is, of course, partly true and partly untrue. So far as\nproduction is concerned, the only change that war requires is greater\nspeed and greater volume; the difference is one of degree and not at all\nof kind. It is only in the region of finance that war-time conditions\nwork havoc with economic \u201claws\u201d; and the experience of war-time has\ntaught us the useful lesson that these \u201claws\u201d have no permanent\ncharacter. They are on the contrary contingent and derivative affairs,\nbeing no more than general statements concerning economic tendencies\nwhich are set afoot and sustained by the ways in which men habitually\nact. If men could be induced to act differently, then we should require\nto formulate a new set of \u201claws.\u201d The greatest revelation of the war in\nmany respects is the tremendous achievement of industrial production in\nGreat Britain under the influence of a social emotion, and without any\nof the common incentives of personal advantage. It may be conceded that\nthis social emotion was to some extent stimulated by a group antagonism,\nbut in the main it was the love of and the desire to preserve\u2014in spite\nof its faults\u2014that particular social synthesis described as British that\nlay behind this great performance. And once more let it be repeated that\nthe peril of war is not the only organ of social vision.\n\nIt is not pretended that commerce will be redeemed automatically by\nplacing a limitation upon the profit-motive; but without such a\nlimitation, it cannot be redeemed at all. It must enter into our scheme\nto provide means of kindling the social vision which will transform\ncommerce into a social service; and this implies certain changes of\ntemper and method in the system of education. There is no reason why we\nshould not come to regard the business of feeding and clothing the\npeople as much a department of the public service as that of educating\nor that of providing them with water or the time of day, or of\ntransmitting their correspondence; and there is no reason for supposing\nthat a right education will not provide in time as effectual a spur to\npatriotism as the peril of war.\n\n\n                                   IV\n\n\nIt is, however, not enough to standardise the cost of living and to\nimpose a limit upon profits; for we have still no adequate guarantee\nagainst a lowering of the standard of life. It does not necessarily\nfollow that the surplus profits will go to the raising of wages, or that\nstandardised prices will make for a sufficient living. It is necessary\nto define a minimum standard of life. The demand for a minimum wage is a\nbeginning in this direction, but under the profit system, the minimum\nwage defined as a money-wage is something of a snare. For so long as\nprices tend to fly upward, no minimum wage can effectually prevent a\ndepression of the standard of life. It is only as we succeed in fixing a\nminimum \u201creal wage\u201d which takes account of the cost of living that we\napproach a satisfactory estimate. But, again, under the present\nsystem\u2014the relation of supply to demand in the labour market will render\neven a minimum \u201creal wage\u201d exceedingly precarious.\n\nThe only satisfactory solution of this difficulty is to dissolve the\nconnection between work and wages. The assumption that men will not work\nunless they must is not true; but it is the truth that while men are\ncompelled to work by the coercion of fear\u2014whether of hunger or of\npunishment\u2014they will not do the most or the best work of which they are\ncapable. That workmen nowadays are apt to do as little as they can for\nas much as they can get is not to be disputed; and organised labour\ncombines with its demand for larger wages another demand for fewer\nworking hours, and under certain conditions imposes restrictions on\noutput. But this is simply the answer in kind which labour returns to\ncapital. It is the vicious sequel of a vicious system. Capital buys in\nthe cheapest and sells in the dearest market; and labour having been\nbrought up in the same school does the same thing. If capital tries to\nextort as much as it can out of labour, it is not to be wondered at that\nlabour should take a hand in the game.\n\nWe have to recognise that the best workmanship requires two conditions;\nfirst\u2014that the worker shall have a direct interest in the thing he\nproduces, second, that he shall enjoy the freedom which comes from a\nsense of guaranteed security. To the former we shall have to return at a\nlater stage in the argument. Concerning the latter, we have seen how the\npresent system exposes the worker to a grave and vexatious insecurity.\nIt is stupid to suppose that men will habitually put their best into\ntheir work under such conditions as these. The whole system is\nintrinsically demoralising to all whom it touches. It is demoralising to\nthe employer because he comes to regard the worker as a mere \u201chand,\u201d a\ntool; and that is a frame of mind which saps his own manhood. It is\ndemoralising to the worker because it treats his physical energy as a\nthing to be bought and sold at a price, the highest price he can extort;\nand since a man\u2019s labour is actually inseparable from his person, it\nreduces him to a condition of servility, which, within a certain limit,\nis as real as that of a chattel slave. He has neither independence nor\nsecurity. Over against this state of things, we must affirm that a man\u2019s\nsubsistence shall be guaranteed to him as a customary practice, in good\nweather and in bad, in sickness and in health, in work or unemployment.\nThe British Labour Party\u2019s proposal of a national minimum standard of\nlife universally enforced is certainly one of the cornerstones of a\nwholesome social order. The cynic will probably say that this will be\nthe paradise of the slacker; and no doubt there would be some persons\nbase enough to evade their share of productive labour. But we can count\nupon the public opinion of a society in which freedom has created a new\nsense of social obligation and a new quality of fellowship, to make a\nslacker\u2019s life not worth living. It may very fairly be doubted whether\nat the worst the slacker who remained incorrigible would constitute so\ngreat a tragedy\u2014either in number or in kind\u2014or constitute so clear\nevidence of the bankruptcy of a system as do the innumerable and\nincreasing derelicts of the present industrial order.\n\nThese three measures, the standardisation of the cost of living, the\nlimitation of profits, the institution of a minimum standard of life are\nnecessary to the redemption of commerce. For to redeem commerce, we must\nin the first instance, take away from it the power and the opportunity\nof exploiting life for the ends of private gain. But this process\nsecures another result. It ensures for the mass of the people a\nreasonable security and sufficiency of physical subsistence, so that the\npre-occupation with self-preservation need no longer arrest their\nspiritual development. We establish the foundations of freedom\u2014freedom\nfrom fear, from anxiety, from the autocracy of the employer or his\nagent\u2014and confer upon the ordinary man a new status, in which we may\nwith good hope expect to find him susceptible to a social vision\npowerful to evoke his devotion and to bring his will into captivity to\nits obedience. Commerce and industry will then no longer be a vast\nscramble of competition and exploitation, but a generous social\nco-operation.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter IV.\n                        THE REDEMPTION OF WORK.\n\n    \u201cAnd the men of labour spent their strength in daily struggling for\n    breath to maintain the vital strength they laboured with. So living\n    in a daily circulation of sorrow, living but to work, and working\n    but to live, as if daily bread were the only end of a wearisome\n    life, and a wearisome life the only occasion of daily bread.\u201d\u2014DANIEL\n    DEFOE.\n\n    \u201cAnd perfect the day shall be, when it is of all men understood that\n    the beauty of holiness must be in labour as well as in rest. Nay!\n    more, if it may be, in labour; in our strength rather than in our\n    weakness; and in the choice of what we shall work for through the\n    six days and may know to be good at their evening time, than in the\n    choice of what we pray for on the seventh, of reward and repose.\n    With the multitude that keep holiday we may perhaps sometimes vainly\n    have gone up to the House of the Lord and vainly there have asked\n    for what we fancied would be mercy; but for the few who labour as\n    their Lord would have them, the mercy needs no seeking, and their\n    wide home no hallowing. Surely goodness and mercy shall _follow_\n    them all the days of their life, and they shall dwell in the House\n    of the Lord for ever.\u201d\u2014JOHN RUSKIN.\n\nTHE clue to the approaching change in the social order is to be found in\nthe mind of organised labour. What organised labour is resolved to\nachieve, that it will achieve soon or late. Hitherto we have been\nconcerned in these pages with an enquiry, more or less speculative, into\nthe conditions and measures required for a wholesome social evolution.\nHow far does the present tendency of organised labour correspond with\nthe general lines of progress which our enquiry has so far constrained\nus to define? It will not be necessary, in order to answer this\nquestion, to survey the whole field of labour policy. For our present\npurpose we may neglect on the one hand the conservative element in the\nlabour movement, and the extreme revolutionary element on the other.\nThis does not imply a judgment on either; it simply means that we shall\nreach a safer judgment upon the direction in which labour is minded to\ngo by considering the central mass of the movement; and of this central\nmass it may be affirmed with some assurance that its best mind has\nreceived a more coherent and detailed interpretation in Great Britain\nthan elsewhere. We shall, therefore, consider the general tendency of\nthe progressive elements in the British Labour Movement. It will not be\nnecessary to raise the question of ways and means at this point. It is a\nquestion upon which strong views are held on both sides\u2014whether labour\nis to attain its goal by political or industrial action, by gradual\napproach or by some catastrophic method such as the general strike. But\nthe question of method does not arise at this point; our present object\nis to examine so far as we may the goal which organised labour is\npursuing.\n\n\n                                   I\n\n\nThe Trade Union movement originated in the necessity to provide some\nremedy for \u201cthe helplessness in which since the industrial revolution,\nthe individual workman stood in relation to the capitalist employer and\nstill more in relation to the joint-stock company and the national\ncombine or trust.\u201d In this initial stage it was governed by what Mr.\nSidney Webb has called the \u201cDoctrine of Vested Interests,\u201d and it was\nchiefly concerned with securing those concessions and safe-guards which\nconstitute the \u201cTrade Union Conditions\u201d to the suspension of which\nBritish Labour consented for the period of the war. These conditions\naffected the rate of wages, the length of working day, overtime, night\nwork, Sunday duty, mealtimes, holidays, and included a countless\nmultitude of details affecting processes, machines, the employment of\nboys and girls, the limitation of output, and other related subjects\u2014the\nwhole being an inconceivably intricate patchwork of concessions and\nadvantages gained as the result of innumerable local skirmishes and\nnegotiations. The policy at this stage may be properly described as one\nof \u201cnibbling\u201d at the enemies\u2019 lines, of raiding his trenches as\nopportunity offered or need required; and it is a commonplace what large\nand substantial advantages these operations have yielded to the workers\nas a whole, whether unionists or not. But it was not possible that these\npiece-meal tactics should continue to be the chief weapon of a growing,\nhighly organised movement which was gaining a kind of self-consciousness\nand a common mind; and gradually out of the experience of the Unions\ngrew the \u201cDoctrine of the Common Rule.\u201d The main emphasis has now\nshifted from the local and sectional problem to that of establishing and\nmaintaining a Standard Rate of Wages and a normal Working Day. This\nchange is naturally marked by the appearance of a large scale strategy\nin place of the local and occasional tactics of the earlier stage; and\nthe earlier type of labour leader is rapidly disappearing in favour of\npersons who are able to bring some gifts of statesmanship to the\nproblems of labour. This is not to say that the earlier doctrine has\nbeen abandoned; rather it has been supplemented and overshadowed by the\nnew orientation.\n\nBut a situation has recently arisen which will probably bring about the\npermanent and general supremacy of the Common Rule doctrine. The\nurgencies of war-production made it desirable and necessary that the\nachievements of the earlier unionism should be suspended; and all the\nintricate machinery of safeguards and restrictions was willingly laid on\none side for the period of the war. But it is now evident that even with\nthe best will in the world, this restoration, as it was originally\nguaranteed, has become impracticable. Events in industry have moved so\nrapidly that it is impossible to retrace our steps to the _ante-bellum_\nperiod and to pick up the lines of life where we dropped them in 1914.\nAt first sight it would appear that this result proved that the whole\nachievement of the earlier union activity had been of a peculiarly\nfragile and slender kind. Yet, despite this circumstance, the British\nTrade Unions have grown considerably during the war, this growth being\ndoubtless due to the increasing sense that only a strong corporate\nmovement of the workers will be able to establish for them the necessary\nconditions of a secure and independent life, and in particular such\nimprovements in their position, in respect of wages and other matters,\nas they have been able to gain during the war. It now seems likely that\nthe outcome of the situation created by the impossibility of restoring\nthe _status quo ante_, and the increase of Trade Union strength, will be\nthe general acceptance of the Doctrine of the Common Rule and a\nprogramme based upon it; and the demand for the Restoration of Trade\nUnion Conditions may take the form of a demand for certain general\nstandards of life and labour. Already, it is fairly evident that the\nleast that labour will demand will be what Mr. Sidney Webb calls \u201cthe\nNew Industrial Charter\u201d in which there are five articles: (i.) the\nprevention of unemployment; (ii.) the maintenance of standard rates of\nwages; (iii.) a \u201cconstitution\u201d for factory and industry, _i.e._ the\nintroduction of a measure of democratic control over the conditions of\nwork; (iv.) no limitation of output; (v.) freedom for every worker.[15]\nThe \u201ccharter\u201d as it stands, represents a minimum demand; it certainly\ndoes not run to revolutionary excess and contemplates no organic change\nin the existing framework of the industrial order. With its probable\neconomic effects we are not now concerned, but it is important to notice\nthe emphasis which it lays upon the standing of the worker. The charter\naims to give him security against unemployment, a share in the control\nof the conditions under which he works, and freedom from the autocratic\ndictation of employer or foreman, and from the coercion of necessity.\nEven this moderate measure would undoubtedly bring a great accession of\nindependence to the ordinary worker. Further, this charter applies to\nall workers, not to unionists alone; for once the Standard Rate and the\nNormal Day are conceded, the old invidious necessity of making war upon\nnon-unionists disappears; and with it, to the great good of all\nconcerned, the demoralising custom of imposing restrictions upon output.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  The whole position is discussed in its relation both to the employer\n  and to the worker in Mr. Webb\u2019s brochure: _The Restoration of Trade\n  Union Conditions_. Since these passages were written, the increased\n  demands here foreshadowed have been definitely made.\n\n\n                                   II\n\n\nThis \u201ccharter\u201d will not be granted without a struggle. The greed and\n_amour propre_ of some employers, and the stupidity of others, will\ninterpose great obstacles to its institution. The great growing strength\nof organised labour, however, guarantees a comparatively early\ncapitulation of the intransigent employers.[16] But it would be a\nmistake to suppose that this is all that is implied in the present\ntemper of labour. A good deal of what labour is looking to has not yet\nreached the stage of articulation, but it is impossible to misapprehend\nthe general direction in which it is moving. The socialist propaganda,\neven if it has not always been as prolific of conversions as its\npromoters desired, has been a singularly potent instrument of education,\nand if the workers as a whole have not accepted the conclusions of the\nsocialist, it is most certain that they have been profoundly moved by\nhis premises. Probably more than any other influence it has stimulated\nthe spirit of revolt against a permanent division of society by a line\nof economic privilege; and it has encouraged a very real insurgency\nagainst the idea, so comforting to the fortunate classes, that it is the\nduty of all persons to be content in that station of life into which\nProvidence has been pleased to call them. While the rich believed that\ntheir duty to their less fortunate neighbours was an affair of charity,\nthe Socialist had taught the poor to cry for justice. The chief\nachievement of the Socialist movement up to this time lies less in the\nacceptance of its doctrines than in the new sense of _right_ which it\nhas succeeded in awakening, even in many to whom the very term socialism\nstill represents a dangerous and forbidding spectre. And it is this\nsense of _right_, the refusal to accept as permanent and just a state of\nexploitation, with the demand for economic freedom and independence,\nwhich is working as an irresistible leaven in the mind of the\nworker-mass of our time; often indeed, inarticulately enough, but in the\nminds of the better educated and most thoughtful workers, beginning to\nexpress itself in specific requirements which far outstrip Mr. Sidney\nWebb\u2019s conservative interpretation of the present need.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  Since these paragraphs were written, a National Industrial Conference\n  convened by the British Government, and composed of equal numbers of\n  employers\u2019 and workers\u2019 representatives, has reported unanimously in\n  favour of a universal minimum wage and a universal maximum week.\n\nThe Socialism popularly advocated during the last half-century, is,\nhowever, not likely to capture the working-class of to-day. The\nmovement for the nationalisation of the means of production and\ndistribution\u2014especially of the primary necessities of life\u2014has\nindeed gained strength during the war; and the public ownership\ndoctrine of orthodox socialism is in no danger of being discarded,\nthough it may be modified in the extent of its application. But the\northodox socialist plan of vesting economic and industrial control\nin the state will not survive the war. The modern doctrine of the\nstate reached its apogee during the war; it is already in process of\nrapid discredit. This is chiefly due to the revelation of the logic\nof state-absolutism, which the German performance in the war has\nyielded; and we are likely to witness a strong reaction from the\ndoctrine of the sovereign omni-competent state in the coming\ngeneration. Moreover, in England the working of the Munitions Act\nhas proved that the state may be as harsh and troublesome an\nemployer as a private individual or a corporation; and the workers\nare not minded to emancipate themselves from the plutocracy to hand\nthemselves over to a bureaucracy.\n\nBut how is public ownership to be made practicable without slate\ncontrol? The experiences of war-time have revealed a possible solution\nof the difficulty. The Garton Foundation and the Whitley Committee, the\nformer a private, the latter a parliamentary body, and neither committed\nto \u201clabour\u201d views, have been led by the study of industrial conditions\nin war-time to advocate introduction of democratic control into\nindustry, and experiments in democratic control which have been made,\nhave plainly demonstrated its practicability and its economic value. In\nthe woollen trades that centre upon Bradford, in Yorkshire, various\ntroubles interfered with the output of cloth. Early in 1916 the War\nOffice requisitioned the output of the factories for the production of\nkhaki, blankets, and other war-material; and a little later the\nGovernment purchased all the available wool on the market. The\ndistribution of this wool to the factories was left by the Army\nContracts Department to a Board of Control which it established for the\nwhole industry. \u201cThe allocation,\u201d says a recent account of the matter,\n\u201cis carried out by means of a series of rationing committees. There are\ndistrict rationing committees of spinners, of manufacturers, and a joint\nrationing committee on which the Trade Unions are represented. These\ncommittees ascertain all the facts about an individual firm\u2019s\nconsumption of wool, and the kind and quality of machinery that has been\nused. From these data the rations are arranged for the several mills of\nthe district, while the Government committee settles the rations for the\nseveral districts. It is an extraordinarily interesting example of an\nindustry regulating its life on a principle of equity instead of leaving\nthe fortune of different mills and the fortunes of thousands of\nworkmen\u2019s homes to the blind scramble of the market.\u201d It is of interest\nfurther to observe concerning this experiment that when the Government\nrequisitioned the mills, it established a method of payment which\neliminated profit-making, and the spinner and the manufacturer became\nvirtually government servants. This is worth remembering when it is\nurged that the incentive of profit is essential to industrial\ndevelopment, especially in view of the conspicuous success of the\nexperiment. More to our immediate point, however, is that this is a\ndefinite experiment in democratic control, for the organisation in which\nthe ultimate control of the woollen industry was vested is composed of\nthirty-three members, eleven each being appointed by the Government, the\nEmployers\u2019 Associations, and by the Trade Unions.\n\nThe experiment in the woollen trades goes farther than the measure of\ndemocratic control suggested by Mr. Sidney Webb in his charter. For he\ncontemplates no more than a democratic control of the actual conditions\nof work, while the control of raw material is vested in the Board of\nControl of the woollen industries. Mr. Webb\u2019s suggestion is for\n\u201cworkshop committees or shop stewards\u201d in every establishment having\nmore than twenty operators, to whom the employer should be required to\ncommunicate at least one week prior to their adoption any proposed new\nrules, and also any proposed changes in wage-rates, piece-work prices,\nallowances, deductions, hours of labour, meal-times, methods of working\nand conditions affecting the comfort of the workshop.[17] Mr. Webb\nhimself would probably like a good deal more than this; but in his\nbrochure, he frankly writes as one who believes that \u201cthe most hopeful\nevolution of society ... lies always in making the best rather than the\nworst out of what we find at the moment to hand.\u201d But in point of fact,\nvery considerable extensions of the principle are already being\ncanvassed; and it is unlikely that organised labour will be long content\nwith the timid bid for a share of industrial control which Mr. Webb\u2019s\nproposal represents. It is symptomatic of the present tendency that in\nthe Building Trades a movement initiated by Mr. Malcolm Sparkes, a\nLondon Master Builder, looking toward the formation of an Industrial\nParliament for the building trades, has already been the subject of\nserious discussion both by the employers\u2019 associations, and the trade\nunions concerned. Mr. Sparkes suggests that the Parliament should be\ncomposed of twenty members appointed by the National Association\nBuilding Trades Council, and twenty appointed by the Federation of\nBuilding Trades Employers, and that it should meet regularly for\nconstructive, and not at all for arbitral or conciliatory purposes. To\nthis parliament would be remitted such matters as the regularisation of\nwages, unemployment, technical training and apprenticeship, publicity,\nand the investigation of possible lines of trade improvement. But\nobviously such a parliament as Mr. Sparkes suggests could have vitality\nand authority only as it stood at the top of a hierarchy of analogous\nbodies all the way up, through provincial and district councils, from\nthe committee of the single shop.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  _The Restoration of Trade Union Conditions, p. 95._\n\nThe principle of democratic control in industry has come to stay;\ntogether with the doctrine of public ownership it will probably fix the\naccepted social policy of progressive labour. Already, indeed, this\ncombination is to be found in the British Labour Party\u2019s memorandum on\n\u201cLabour and the Social Order.\u201d The Party \u201cdemands the progressive\nelimination from the control of industry of the private capitalist,\nindividual or joint-stock.\u201d It stands \u201cunhesitatingly for the national\nownership and administration of the Railways and Canals, and their\nunion, along with Harbours and Roads, and the Posts and Telegraphs ...\nin a united national service of Communication and Transport, to be\nworked, unhampered by capitalist, private and purely local interests,\n_and with a steadily increasing participation of the organised workers\nin the management, both central and local_, exclusively for the common\ngood.\u201d And again, the Party \u201cdemands the immediate nationalisation of\nmines, the extraction of coal and iron being worked as a public service,\n_with a steadily increasing participation in the management, both\ncentral and local, of the various grades of persons employed_.\u201d It is no\nexaggeration to say that the principle of democratic control in\nindustry, especially under the conditions within which the British\nLabour Party contemplates it, carries with it an entire change in the\nstatus of the worker. For when we remember that with democratic control\nin industry, the British Labour Party demands a universal application of\nthe policy \u201cof the National Minimum, affording complete security against\ndestitution, in sickness and in health, in good times and bad alike, to\nevery member of the community of whatever age or sex,\u201d it is evident\nthat we have the two requirements of that necessary revolution in the\nworker\u2019s standing which is the corner-stone of a worthy social order.\nThe worker is no longer dependent, a pawn in the game of production, an\nemployed wage-earner, a \u201chand;\u201d he has become a partner, possessing both\nthe freedom and the responsibility of partnership. And it is no less\nevident that a great stride has been taken in the direction of\nseparating work from the means of subsistence and abolishing \u201cwagery.\u201d\n\n\n                                  III\n\n\nThere can be little doubt that the principle of public ownership with\ndemocratic control has received a great impulse from the able advocacy\nof what has come to be known as Guild-Socialism. The work _guild_ in\nthis connection is something more than a reminiscence of the medi\u00e6val\ninstitution; the present movement has quite definite affinities with its\nhistorical precursor, notably in the principle of combining all the\nmembers of a craft in co-operation. But the \u201cnational\u201d guild goes beyond\nits forbear in two respects\u2014in the fact of being national where the\nolder institution was local, and in the account it necessarily takes of\nthe more complex and specialised character of modern industry. \u201cA\nnational guild,\u201d says Mr. S. G. Hobson, \u201cis a combination of all the\nlabour of every kind, administrative, executive, productive, in any\nparticular industry. It includes those who work with their brains and\nthose who contribute labour power. Administration, skilled and unskilled\nlabour\u2014every one who can work\u2014are all entitled to membership.\u201d This body\nof people will lease from the community the right and the means to carry\non the industry with which it is concerned, always providing that it\nshall be under conditions which safeguard the interests of all the\npeople in respect of the products of the industry.\n\nIn the eyes of the guildsman, the \u201coriginal sin\u201d of the existing\nindustrial system is production for profit. In his _Guild Principles in\nPeace and War_, Mr. S. G. Hobson puts side by side (_inter alia_) the\nfollowing figures, (the particular year to which they belong is not\ngiven):\n\n                                  Iron and Steel         Railway\n                                     Industries.   Construction.\n       Net output                    \u00a330,948,100     \u00a317,103,100\n       Persons employed                  262,225         241,520\n       Net output per person                \u00a3118             \u00a371\n       Average wage per person               \u00a367             \u00a367\n\nHere are revealed two facts of great interest. The first is that in\nrailway construction, which is chiefly for _need and use_, the disparity\nbetween the average output and the average wage per person is only four\npounds, whereas the iron and steel industries, where production is for\nprofit, the disparity is as high as fifty-one pounds. Railway\nconstruction represents output in locomotives, rolling-stock and so\nforth which the railway companies make for their own use; whereas the\nproducts of the iron and steel industries are destined for the market.\nWhere product is for profit, the excess of average output over the\naverage wage is more than twelve times as great as where the production\nis for use. This is connected with the fact that the iron and steel\nindustries are chiefly concerned with the provision of dividends,\nwhereas in railway construction there is no such _direct_ necessity.\n\nThe second fact of importance is that in both cases the average wage is\nthe same. This is the result of two circumstances\u2014first, the\ncommodity-theory of labour, according to which labour-power is regarded\nas a measureable marketable affair, subject to the law of supply and\ndemand and separate from the personality of the worker; and second, that\nreserve of labour commonly called unemployment, the existence of which\ntends to moderate the fluctuations of the labour market. It is in the\ninterests of capital that there should be a permanent margin of\nunemployment in order that the price of labour should not become\nexcessive at any time by reason of its scarcity.\n\nIn the past, the maintenance of the unemployed was, so far as their own\nmembers were affected, assumed altogether by the Trade Unions; but by\nthe provisions of the National Insurance Act this has partly been laid\nupon the employer and upon the community as a whole. But, says the\nguildsman, since the existence of a reserve of labour seems under\npresent conditions inseparable from the conduct of the industry; and\nsince further, it is impossible to secure that under no conditions there\nwill not be some margin of unemployment, the charge for the maintenance\nof the reserve of labour should be made to fall on the industry itself.\nThis, however, immediately destroys the commodity-theory of labour.\nUnder such an arrangement, the worker will be regarded not as a\npotential vendor of so much labour-power, subject to the law of supply\nand demand, and liable to lose his subsistence and that of his family by\nthe chances of the market, but as a regular member of a society which\nprovides a financial reserve for the purpose of maintaining him when he\nfalls into the labour reserve. So once more, we see the status of the\nworker transformed. He ceases to be a \u201chand,\u201d and becomes a partner.\n\nThe \u201cnational guild\u201d is really no more than the systematic development\nof this idea of partnership; and because it insists that this\npartnership shall be real and not fictitious, it rejects all schemes of\ndemocratic control in industry which (like the Garton Foundation and the\nWhitley schemes) still retain the commodity-theory of labour, and all\nschemes of profit-sharing which is the voluntary bounty of the employer.\nThe guildsman holds that the worker has a direct interest in the thing\nproduced apart from his hire, and that his contribution in the way of\nlabour entitles him to a partnership in the industry as real as that of\nhis employer, and much more real than that of the investor who does no\nmore than rake in his dividends. To this principle of partnership, there\nis, of course, no logical end but the elimination of the private\nemployer, whether an individual or a company, and the combination of the\nadministrative, executive and productive labour in a given industry in\nsome such way as is contemplated in the \u201cnational guild.\u201d\n\nUnder these conditions, production for profit will be subordinated\nincreasingly to production for need and use. Industry will be organised\nno longer in the interests of capital, but in those of the community;\nand the profits that may accrue will go to the community. The conduct of\nthe industry will be vested in a hierarchy of representative bodies\nwhich will consist of persons chosen to act on behalf of the various\ndepartments of production and administration; and these bodies will\nrange all the way up from the small shop council to the national\ncouncil. The guildsmen extend their vision further to a combination of\nnational councils, which will become the economic parliament of the\nnation, empowered to handle its commercial and industrial affairs and\nleaving the legislature to occupy itself with those aspects of public\nlife such as education, health, art, local government and so forth which\nare now so grievously neglected and subordinated to the exigencies of\nthe commercial life of the nation.[18]\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  The proposed National Industrial Council recommended by the recent\n  National Industrial Conference is plainly an instalment of the\n  National Guild Council.\n\nThat roughly is the guild theory. Its great advantage is that while it\neliminates competitive profit-making, it also avoids through its\nemphasis upon democratic control, the danger of excessive centralisation\nand bureaucratic control inherent in state socialism. On the other hand\nit does not fall into the syndicalist error of antagonism to the state.\nIt is not without interest to point out here (in anticipation of later\ndiscussion) that the national guild reflects on the economic side the\ncurrent tendency in political philosophy towards a doctrine of the state\nwhich regards it as multi-cellular in nature, and would make it\nfederalistic in practice, in contrast with the emphasis of the last\ngeneration upon its unitary and absolutist character. It would appear\nthat sovereignty is destined to be distributed among a series of\ndemocratic functional controls.\n\nThe pressure of events has already validated many of the contentions of\nthe guildsman. We have seen how in the case of the woollen industries\nthe Government has initiated the practice of treating employers as its\nown paid servants, has recognised the principle of democratic control,\nhas assumed the purchase and control of raw materials, and has\nsuperseded production for profit by production for use; we have here all\nthe essentials of a national guild save one; and that one thing needful\nis the short step from government control to public ownership. Naturally\nthe end of the war will bring some reaction from the position thus\nachieved; yet it is impossible not to believe that the need to increase\nthe aggregate normal productivity of the nation, imposed by the\nfinancial burdens of the war, will ultimately compel a further\ndevelopment of these wartime tendencies. Certainly we have in the\nBritish Labour Party some guarantee that this movement will continue.\nIts memorandum on reconstruction virtually presupposes where it does not\nexplicitly affirm the underlying principles of the guild-movement.\n\u201cStanding as it does for the Democratic Control of Industry, the Labour\nParty would think twice before it sanctioned any abandonment of the\npresent profitable centralisation of purchase of raw materials; of the\npresent carefully organised \u2018rationing,\u2019 by joint committees of the\ntrades concerned, of the several establishments with the materials they\nrequire; of the present elaborate system of \u2018costing\u2019 and public audit\nof manufacturers\u2019 accounts, so as to stop the waste heretofore caused by\nthe mechanical inefficiency of the more backward firms, of the present\nsalutary publicity of manufacturing processes and expenses thus ensured;\nand on the information thus obtained (in order never again to revert to\nthe old-time profiteering) of the present rigid fixing, for standardised\nproducts, of maximum prices at the factory, at the warehouse of the\nwholesale trader, and in the retail shop.\u201d\n\n\n                                   IV\n\n\n\u201cThe question,\u201d the Memorandum continues, \u201cof the retail prices of\nhousehold commodities is emphatically the most practical of all\npolitical issues to the woman elector. The male politicians have too\nlong neglected the grievances of the small household, which is the prey\nof every profiteering combination.\u201d And this brings us to the answer to\nour question how far the present orientation of labour satisfies the\nconditions we have laid down as necessary to worthy social progress. The\nrigid fixing of the retail prices of household commodities,\u2014the primary\nnecessities of life\u2014plainly substitutes the principle of production for\nneed and use for that of production for profit; and while this of itself\ndoes not eliminate the profiteer altogether, it tends so to limit the\narea of exploitation as to bring the small household, which is after all\nthe unit of society, within reasonable distance of a healthy security of\nmaterial circumstance. Moreover, the principle of the National Minimum\nvirtually dissolves the connection between work and the means of\nsubsistence, so that the worker gains security of maintenance and a\nlarge accession of freedom and independence. Still further, the\nprinciple of democratic control brings to every worker complete immunity\nfrom exploitation by those upon whom an antecedent economic advantage\nhas conferred power and enables him to graduate to the dignity and\nresponsibility of partnership.\n\nBut what then? Having achieved this new status, it is certain that he\nwill not be satisfied. For the thing that is stirring in the mind and\nheart of organised labour to-day is something much deeper than a desire\nfor a more satisfactory physical life or for economic independence.\nLabour is indeed unable to make articulate more than the margin of the\nnew desire of which it is aware; but the phenomenon which we have called\n\u201clabour unrest\u201d properly understood, is the result of a craving,\nimperious and not to be denied, for a larger life. Of this larger life\nthe worker instinctively feels that economic security and independence\nare the indispensable pre-requisites. According to the measure of his\nintelligence and insight, he is aiming for these things. That is the\ninwardness of the present stirrings of organised labour. The worker\nknows that while he is compelled to hire himself out at a price in order\nto provide himself and his children with bread, under conditions which\nmake a sufficiency of bread permanently uncertain, and which virtually\ndeny him the opportunity of being anything more\u2014from his first working\nday to his last\u2014than the tool of interests from which he is powerless to\ndetach himself, he can never become the man he might be or experience\nthe joy of life which his intuitions declare to be his rightful\ninheritance. The greater part of life, and especially of the worker\u2019s\nlife, is an unredeemed and unexplored tract; and the possibilities\nhidden in those regions beyond, eye hath not seen neither hath ear\nheard. But dimly and indistinctly the worker has caught glimpses of this\npromised land and he has set his face that way. But he has justly\nperceived that between him and the promised land lies the \u201cgreat divide\u201d\nof economic disinheritance with all that it entails of insecurity and\nbondage. To-day he has come so far as to be in the very act of crossing\nthis divide. That he does not discern clearly what manner of life awaits\nhim in his promised land is no wonder; for none of us know, since as yet\nnone of us have tasted save only in brief and transitory moments the\nrare quality of the fellowship and the creative urge which belong to the\nlife of spiritual freedom. The British Labour Party speaks of \u201cthe\npromotion of music, literature, fine art, which have been under\ncapitalism so grossly neglected, and upon which, so the Labour Party\nholds, any real development of civilisation fundamentally depends.\u201d This\nis a hint of the \u201cmilk and honey\u201d of the promised land, and it is only\nin hints we can speak until we have entered upon our inheritance of\nspiritual life, and have begun to explore its untold riches. But the\nroad into that land is the road of economic freedom and independence;\nand that is the road which organised labour is making to-day. It has\ndiscovered that \u201csociety, like the individual, does not live by bread\nalone,\u2014does not exist only for perpetual wealth production.\u201d If it makes\nbread and produces wealth, it is only that men may live, and living may\ntogether strive to achieve the glorious liberty of the sons of God.\n\nIt is a fair conjecture concerning the results of this general movement,\nthat it will ultimately assign to the economic interests of life their\nown proper secondary place. With the gradual disappearance of private\nprofit and wages will pass the present ascendancy of the economic motive\nover the whole of life. It is significant of the intrinsic impulse of\nthis movement that the promoters of the national guild movement should\ncontemplate the separation of the conduct and control of the commercial\nand industrial elements of national life from the business of the\nnational legislature, so that that body may attend to things other and\ngreater than bread. This does not mean that the economic aspects of life\nwill lose their proper importance; it simply means that they will be\ndeprived of their present paramountcy; and how much that means for the\nright kind of social progress, for the development of a completely human\norder of life, it is impossible to do more than fancy. But it will be a\ngreat day when men awaken to the fact that the centre of gravity of life\nis not in the body but in the mind.\n\n\n                                   V\n\n\nTo have transformed the status of the worker is, however, only a part of\nthe problem of work. An industrial democracy may conceivably be no\nbetter than a glorified capitalist, a national profit-making concern.\nBut this keeps us still within the vicious circle of economic\ndomination, with the dangers of degeneration greatly increased. For in\nplace of individuals exploiting individuals, we should have nations\nendeavouring to exploit nations\u2014with two certain consequences, war and a\nreaction to competitive individualism; and our last state would be worse\nthan the first. Our complete emancipation from the economic motive\nrequires not only a new status for the worker but _a new doctrine of\nwork_. Industry must no more be conceived as a means of _national_\nwealth than of individual wealth.\n\nThe true doctrine of work is present in germ in the British Labour\nParty\u2019s formula of \u201cworkers whether by hand or by brain.\u201d The inclusion\nin one category of the industrial and professional classes should exert\na very profound influence upon the popular attitude to manual labour.\nMuch of the traditional habit of looking upon manual labour as being\nintrinsically inferior to brain work is due to a stupid lack of\ndiscrimination. For skilled labour often requires as nice a\nco-ordination of mind and hand, and as sensitive a nervous organisation\nas the most recondite surgery. The competent engineer is in no sense the\nmental inferior of the accountant; probably the engineer has on the\nwhole the more highly organised mind; yet the engineer is popularly\nassigned to a relatively lower social rating. The conventional social\ndivisions of those who work are entirely absurd and seem chiefly to\ndepend upon the clothes one wears. That toil is regarded as inferior\nwhich cannot be performed without soiling clothes of a more or less\nceremonial cut.\n\nBut when once it is realised that the work of the physician or the\nclergyman is different only in kind and not in social worth from the\nwork of the machinist or the farm-labourer, we shall have a more\nreasonable basis for classification; and though it is true that the\nminister (being no more immune from the pressure of social atmosphere\nthan other men) has not been unmindful of his stipend or the doctor of\nhis fee, yet both callings have preserved enough of the ideal of\ndisinterested social service to pass on something of the same impulse\ninto occupations which the common mind regards solely as means of\nlivelihood. This indeed, must be the first element in our doctrine of\nwork. It must be regarded primarily as a social service. John Ruskin\nlong ago tried to teach us that in every nation there were four great\nintellectual professions: the soldier\u2019s, to defend it; the pastor\u2019s, to\nteach it; the lawyer\u2019s, to establish justice in it; and the merchant\u2019s,\nto provide for it; and it was, he added, the duty of each of these on\ndue occasion to die for it. What was novel in Ruskin\u2019s doctrine was that\nthere was a due occasion on which a merchant should die for his country.\nBut why should we stop at the merchant? There is no reason why this\nprinciple should not be extended to every kind of labour essential to\nthe life of the nation. At least there should be nothing inconceivable\nin the idea that every member of the community should develop the same\ndegree and quality of social devotion. And (let it be repeated once\nmore) the industrial records of this time of war do make this\nexpectation into something more than a chim\u00e6ra. The splendid social\ndevotion which the emergency of war has discovered and released should\nand could be made a permanent asset. It is entirely a question of the\nright kind of education.\n\nIf the impending revolution in the worker\u2019s status brings with it (as it\nshould) a sense of genuine partnership, its natural sequel should be a\ngrowing consciousness of participation in a great social task. Every man\nwould come to look upon his job as an integral and indispensable part of\nthe common service. This would add a new interest and worth even to the\npurely mechanical tasks which the growth of large-scale production has\nso greatly multiplied. It would be no more than a partial solution of\nthe entire problem involved in routine mechanical toil; but it would go\na great way towards mitigating its inevitable dreariness, and it would\ncertainly bring with it a quality of personal satisfaction in work which\nworking for a living at a job in which one\u2019s sole interest is one\u2019s hire\ncannot possibly afford.\n\n\n                                   VI\n\n\nYet neither the habit of regarding work as participation in a social\ntask nor the element of comradeship which we may reasonably expect to\ngrow out of such a way of conceiving work, nor yet the amelioration of\nthe purely external conditions of modern industrial production, can\npossibly be accepted as furnishing a final solution of the problem of\nwork. It is probable that under existing conditions, some such changes\nas these are all we can hope for over large areas of industrial life;\nperhaps, indeed, without a general recognition of the real social\nsignificance of large scale production, the best we can ever do will\nconsist of further modification of industrial conditions along these\nlines. Yet all this does virtually nothing to make work a means of\nworthy self-expression.\n\nThe high degree of specialisation which has followed the introduction\nand improvement of industrial machinery, confines large multitudes of\npeople to occupations which consist of repeating the same small routine\noperation all day and every day; and the mentally benumbing and\ndemoralising consequences of this type of work is one of the\ncommonplaces of social observation. Not the least of the social services\nof Trade Unionism is that it has furnished to men occupied in purely\nmechanical work an interest which has helped to keep their minds alive.\nIt is rarely recognised how inevitably certain of our graver social\nevils are connected with the devitalising influences of modern\nindustrial conditions. Undoubtedly one of the most powerful causes of\nthe deadly grip of the drink traffic upon society is the opportunity it\nprovides of reaction from the depressing and deadening round of the\nshop. The saloon strikes a kind of psychological balance with the\nfactory. The well-meaning persons who suppose that open spaces, museums,\nart galleries, and the like will furnish effectual off-sets to the\npublic house, overlook the fact that the peculiar depression to which\nthe factory worker is subjected demands a relief more vivid and more\nviolent than these more refined avenues of diversion offer. Temperance\nreformers have greatly neglected this aspect of their problem; and\nprohibition without any accompanying provision for the healthy\nequilibration of human energies is likely to have consequences that may\nastonish and perhaps confound its advocates.\n\nBut the remedy for this and the other penalties which society has to pay\nfor its industrial system is not to be found in the abandonment of\nlarge-scale processes and reversion to an earlier fashion of production.\nMachinery certainly supplanted a more human, kindlier way of life; and\nnot even the extensive factory legislation which has tempered the worst\nexcesses of the new way, has compensated for the passing of the\namenities of the older system. We have, however, to count upon the\npermanence and the still further extension of large-scale processes.\nObviously it is not intrinsically an evil thing, potentially it is an\nasset of incalculable value to society. Even its monotonies have their\nuses; for a certain amount of routine work is good for every man. It is\nonly evil when it is excessive. The disadvantages which belong to\nlarge-scale production are on the whole incidental, and owe their origin\nchiefly to _laissez faire_ and the economic motive. Once this vicious\nconnection is dissolved and production for need and use becomes the\ngeneral rule, the very proficiency of our large-scale processes will\nliberate a great volume of human energy for the pursuit of the spiritual\nends of life.\n\nFor the elimination of the profit-interest, and the regulation of\nproduction on the basis of calculated demand, will at once lead to a\nvery considerable diminution in the number of working hours. It is\nquestionable whether, with industrial processes properly organised, it\nwould be necessary for any man to spend more than four hours a day in\nthe actual production of necessities. This refers, of course, to the\nstrictly mechanical departments of production. In agriculture, which\ndepends upon seasons and weather conditions, it is obvious that a\nstandardised day is impracticable. Moreover, agriculture is an avocation\nwhich has its own peculiar compensations. It is carried on in the\nopen-air and has elements of variety and change to which the industrial\nworker is a stranger. Yet, even in agriculture the great extension of\nmechanical and labour-saving instruments should go far to mitigate the\nacknowledged disadvantages of the life. The evils attaching to the work\nof the farmer and his labourer are, however, largely extrinsic. It is\nthe dullness and monotony of his spare hours that weigh most heavily\nupon him.[19] With the industrial, it is different. He does not lack\nopportunity of social life in so much as he lives normally in large\npopulous centres; but the atonic condition to which he is reduced by the\ncircumstances of his work, renders him incapable of creating and\nenjoying the best kind of fellowship. He is either too weary for any\nkind of fellowship and sits at home reading the newspaper, and then to\nbed; or he turns in his need of compensating excitement to the\nquestionable atmosphere of the public-house. A small minority of tougher\nmental and nervous fibre will cultivate an allotment or seek diversion\nin books or sport; but the majority have neither inclination nor energy\nfor any active pursuits. The remedy for this trouble lies in the drastic\nshortening of the working day for all men who are engaged in the\nmechanical process of production. With the increasing application of\nscience to industry, under conditions of production for use, it is\nimpossible to say how short the necessary working day may become. And if\nit became the rule, as it probably should, that no member of society\nshould be exempt from a share in the work of maintaining its natural\nlife and so take his part in mechanical production, there is no reason\nwhy the indispensable mechanical toil expected of the individual should\nnot be reduced to a very low point indeed.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  The present wholly inadequate remuneration of the agricultural\n  labourer does not come under discussion here, as the argument assumes\n  that the principle of the national minimum is accepted. This\n  assumption is the more reasonable in view of the fact that in England\n  a minimum wage for agricultural labourers has been fixed and is to\n  operate for five years.\n\nIf in addition men are trained from childhood to take the view that this\ntoil is a necessary social task, and therefore, intrinsically noble and\nhonourable, the whole atmosphere in which it is discharged would be\norganically changed. To-day, the prevailing note of speed and\ncompetition reduces the place and sense of comradeship to very narrow\nlimits. The general attitude of antagonism between capital and labour\ninfects the air, and not only makes co-operation between the\nadministrative and productive functions impossible, but introduces a\nsubtle poison of disintegration into the mutual relations of the\noperatives. The only comradeship which appears to exist is that which is\ncreated by the need under present conditions of safeguarding class\ninterests. When men of all classes have been brought up to regard a\ncertain amount of mechanical toil as an honourable obligation to the\nsociety to which they belong, they will naturally accept their share in\nthe common task and bring themselves to it in a spirit of comradeship.\n\n\n                                  VII\n\n\nBut it is useless to suppose that we have done all that is needed when\nwe have thus relieved the irksomeness of the day\u2019s work. Indeed, we have\n(if we leave it at that) only created a great peril\u2014the peril of\ndeterioration which always attends unused or ill-used leisure. \u201cSatan\nfinds some mischief still for idle hands to do;\u201d and the antidote to\nidleness lies in providing things to do that unoccupied hands will turn\nto do with readiness. Yet it were fatal to regard this as a problem of\nutilising spare time. We have indeed a greater and worthier task on\nhand; and the drastic shortening of the statutory working day provides\nus with our opportunity.\n\nGenuine social progress and content is, as we have seen, to be achieved\nonly under conditions where men have the opportunity, and are trained in\nthe exercise of the instinct of creativeness. For the great majority of\nmen, the means of this self-expression must be found in some sort of\nmanual activity. It must take the form of work. Perhaps the solution\nlies in the principle of \u201cone man, two trades\u201d; of which one shall be\nsome part of the mechanical toil involved in social upkeep, and the\nother a craft in which a man may exercise and express something of his\nown independent mind. Possibly we may distinguish the two types of\noccupation as utility-trades and vocations, the one necessary quality of\nthe latter being that men should be able to put their whole souls into\ntheir tasks; and in so far as these tasks are of a direct productive\nkind, since they are not tasks of mere utility, they may fitly be tasks\nof beauty as well. We require something of the nature of a revival of\nthe older type of craftsmanship in which the \u00e6sthetic faculties found\nroom for expression; and in the matter of clothing and house-furniture\nand decoration there is ample room for the development of a revived\ncraftsmanship where use will go hand in hand with beauty. It should\nplainly be an organic part of educational policy to provide for the\nearly laying of the foundations of original and creative craftsmanship.\nIn any wise system of education, the period of adolescence should be\nmarked by a very definite differentiation of vocational training\n(without neglecting the other elements of a generous education).\nAptitudes should be watched for; and the growth of the youth should be\nstimulated along the lines of his natural inclinations. Especially\nshould any signs of independent and original creative power be\nencouraged. Change of this sort can, of course be brought about only\ngradually; but it should be faced seriously if society is ever to be\nemancipated from its baleful subjection to the economic motive.\n\nThat we find it difficult to believe that any change along these lines\nis possible is due chiefly to a lack of acquaintance with any other\nconditions than those which exist to-day. But William Morris and John\nRuskin found no difficulty in believing that men would work \u201cfor the joy\nof the working,\u201d provided that they had work to do which had in it the\nelements of joy. It was so that they worked themselves; and the\nsubstance of their teaching was a plea that work should be made once\nmore a delight by being raised to the plane of art\u2014that is to say, that\nit might become the avenue of independent creative self-expression. It\nwould doubtless take several generations before this doctrine could be\nestablished as a habit of mind and society organised conformably to it,\nbut it is no cheap speculation which foresees, arising out of a\nprogressive liberation and discipline of the creative instincts of a\ncommunity, a new birth of art. The creative urge would, like the sun,\nshoot out coronas of flaming achievement; art itself might climb to a\nplane it has never hitherto known and break out in directions which we\nin our present state of spiritual purblindness cannot anticipate. At\nleast, it is something to be remembered that those days in England in\nwhich industry was alive with a fine craftsmanship and a generous\ncomradeship, were also the days which produced the finest monuments of\nEnglish art.\n\n\n                                  VIII\n\n\nThe organisation of society upon lines of this kind would be a\nprotracted and difficult task; and here one is concerned more with the\ndefinition of a tendency rather than the precise measures necessary to\nmake it effective. Obviously there must be large exceptions to any rule\nof life in any vital and developing social order. But the reduction of\nmechanical toil to the lowest practicable point, and a generous\ndevelopment of the idea and practice of the vocational life seem to be\nessential. And the general principle which we desire for mechanical\ntasks of production should be applied in other regions, as for instance\nin the distributive trades and in those occupations which are concerned\nwith the disposal of waste. The increasing emphasis on hygiene has led\nto the multiplication of a number of \u201cwaste-occupations,\u201d the\nstreet-cleaner, the drain-man, the garbage-man and so forth. Within this\nregion we have every right to expect so large an extension of scientific\nand mechanical methods of dealing with the waste products of life as to\nmake some at least of these occupations wholly superfluous. This type of\noccupation has meantime, the very undesirable and injurious effect of\nrelegating those who are engaged in it to a condition of much social\ninferiority; and this is the more unjust, insomuch as the health of the\ncommunity depends so greatly upon its being faithfully performed. It was\na happy inspiration to clothe the New York street-cleaners in white; and\nit should have a sacramental suggestion for their fellow citizens. For\nwe are familiar with a word which describes a multitude \u201carrayed in\nwhite garments.\u201d The innovation established a point of contact between\nurban cleanliness and holiness; and it is within this cycle of social\njudgment that the waste occupations should be placed. We should then\ntake more kindly to the only equitable solution of the problem presented\nby this class of work, namely that it should be shared out and that all\nthe members of the community should be liable to be called out in\ncompanies, as they are now for jury service, to do their part of this\nindispensable work. This brings the waste occupations into the same\ncategory as the productive trades; in point of fact, it is there they\nreally belong. There can be no intrinsic difference of worth between the\nwork of providing for the needs of society and the work of disposing of\nits waste. For without either of these, society cannot live.\n\nThe only class for which there should be no room in a healthy social\norder is the social parasite. It is to this class that the \u201cidle rich\u201d\nbelong, the people who neither toil nor spin yet fare sumptuously every\nday at the expense of the labour of others. To this class also belongs\nthe large \u201cflunkey\u201d class\u2014butlers, footmen, door-openers, and other\nuniformed persons who are arrayed in fine apparel doing little things\nfor us that we ought to do for ourselves. It is just neither to these\npersons nor to society that they should be allowed to continue in\ncareers of such complete uselessness. So far as Europe is concerned this\nclass has already largely disappeared, for the Army or industry has\nswallowed it up; and it is not likely ever to re-emerge on the pre-war\nscale. We must add also to this parasitic class those who are engaged in\nluxury trades\u2014with the _caveat_ that it is exceedingly difficult to draw\na strict frontier line between necessity and luxury on the one hand, and\non the other, between luxury and the thing that may minister to the\nlegitimate comfort, the health, the beauty and the general enrichment of\nlife. But there are some things so palpably on the wrong side of the\nline that there should be no difficulty in identifying them. It is a\nsubject worth some reflection here that the war is teaching us to do\nwithout many things which we had come to regard as necessities. It is a\nsad commentary upon the civilisation we had produced, that it left us\nwith a hunger which we endeavoured to appease by an elaboration of the\nfringes of life. We had gradually accumulated a range of comforts and\nconveniences, and not a few superfluities, which had come to be regarded\nas indispensable. But the war has taught us how few things are after all\nneedful. We have all the materials of joyful life when we have food to\neat, a home to live in, freedom and congenial work, comradeship and\nlove. And unless these become more and more the sure possession of all,\nour social progress is no more than a laborious sham.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter V.\n                      THE ACHIEVEMENT OF FREEDOM.\n\n    \u201cWhen we say that one animal is higher than another, we mean that it\n    is more able to control its own destiny. Progress is just this:\n    Increase in Freedom.\u201d\u2014STEWART MCDOWALL.\n\n    \u201cNe vous laissez pas tromper par de vaines paroles. Plusieurs\n    chercheront a vous persuader que vous \u00eates vraiment libres, parce\n    qu\u2019ils auront \u00e9crit sur une feuille de papier le mot de libert\u00e9 et\n    l\u2019auront affich\u00e9 \u00e0 tous les carrefours.\n\n    La libert\u00e9 n\u2019est pas un placard qu\u2019on lit au coin de la rue. Elle\n    est une puissance vivante qu\u2019on sent en soi et autour de soi, le\n    g\u00e9nie protecteur du foyer domestique, la garantie des droits\n    sociaux, et le premier de ces droits.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n    La libert\u00e9 luira sur vous quand, a force de courage et de\n    pers\u00e9v\u00e9rance, vous vous serez affranchis de toutes ces servitudes.\u201d\n\n                                                              LAMENNAIS.\n\n                                   I\n\n\nPOLITICAL and religious freedom cannot be complete without the winning\nof economic freedom. That economic dependence cuts the nerve of all\nfreedom needs no proof; the history of landownership is full of\ninstances\u2014even in recent times\u2014of the coercion of dependants in matters\nof opinion and religious observance. So long as one man\u2019s subsistence\ndepends upon the will of another, it is foolish to suppose that he can\nin any real sense be free; and it is to be counted for righteousness to\nthe Trade Unions that by binding the workers together, they have been\nable to resist encroachments on the part of the vested interests upon\nliberty of thought and conscience. Nevertheless, while the present\nacceptances of the industrial order prevail, the worker still lacks that\nliberty of the person without which the liberty of the mind, the crown\nand safeguard of all liberty, can never be more than partial. It is true\nthat the serf was tied to the land in a way in which the modern worker\nis not tied to his job. Yet the difference is more apparent than real;\nfor the worker has obtained this freedom at the cost of that security of\nsubsistence which the serf did undoubtedly to some extent enjoy. The\nworker may also choose his master as the serf could not; but it is\nnevertheless the choice of _a master_, a man who dictates the terms and\nconditions of employment, except in so far as the principle of\ncollective bargaining has succeeded in entering in and modifying the\nmagisterial power of the employer. Freedom of thought and conscience is\na vain thing except a man be able to translate thought into act and to\nobey the injunctions of his conscience; and so long as a system,\nindustrial or other, imposes restrictions upon a man\u2019s control of his\nown person, he does not possess that mobility with which his own\npersonal growth and his ultimate social efficiency are organically bound\nup. To complete our heritage of freedom, it is essential that the worker\nshould receive a guarantee of economic security. His mind and his\nconscience mud be delivered from the fear of starvation; for to-day it\nis only at the risk of exposing himself and his children to hunger that\nhe is able to assert his liberty within the industrial region.[20]\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  Upon the broader effects of the economic factor of property rights\n  upon liberty, see pp. 246f.\n\nIt is further to be noted that industrial conditions circumscribe the\nmind in another more subtle and probably more dangerous way; for a man\nmay assert\u2014and indeed men have often done so\u2014his liberty of thought, and\nso save his mind even at the risk of starvation. The evolution of the\nmachine industry has been in a direction which continually decreases the\nactivity of the mind. It requires no more than habituation to a routine\nprocess which makes no demand for initiative and independent judgment on\nthe part of the worker. This is apt to lead to a mental inertia which\naccords well with that bondage of the person which the wage system\nentails; and this is no doubt the reason (at least in great part) of the\ngeneral apathy of large masses of the workers in the past to progressive\nindustrial movements. And so long as there is ample and easy opportunity\nfor those parts of the physical and nervous organism which have laid\ninert through the working day to strike a balance of expenditure with\nthe rest\u2014in the drinking-shop or elsewhere\u2014there seems to be no reason\nwhy a large proportion of the workers should not sink into a permanent\nhelot class. We are apt to forget that the progressive elements of the\nlabour movement have not hitherto constituted or represented by a great\ndeal the total mass of the working population; and there has been a real\nmenace to the growth of liberty involved in the possibility that the\napathetic elements of the working class might be hardened into a virtual\nserfdom. For the presence in any society of a permanently unprivileged\nand disabled element which is condemned in perpetuity to do its menial\nwork is the undoing not only of liberty, but at last of the society\nitself.\n\nThe problem of liberty resolves itself therefore into that of the\nliberty of the mind. The coming achievement of economic independence is\ndue largely to the circumstance that the Trade Unions have afforded a\nsanctuary for intellectual freedom against the danger of encroachment\nupon it by the system of private capital and the conditions of the\nmachine industry.[21] It must, however, be remembered that the freedom\nof the mind is dependent on factors other than external; and chiefly\nupon the capacity to use mind in coherent and purposeful ways. A mind\ncapable of such use will not long remain bound. This aspect of the\nproblem belongs properly to the sphere of education; and it is in that\nsetting only that it can be profitably handled. At this point our\nconcern is with the external conditions of mental freedom.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  It is worth noticing that on the other hand, the growth of the machine\n  industry has itself indirectly co-operated in this process. \u201cIt\n  follows as a consequence of the large and increasing requirements\n  enforced by the machine technology that the period of preliminary\n  training is necessarily longer, and the schooling demanded for general\n  preparation grows unremittingly more exacting. So that, apart from all\n  question of humanitarian sentiment or of popular fitness for\n  democratic citizenship, it has become a matter of economic expediency,\n  simply as a proposition in technological efficiency at large, to\n  enforce the exemption of children from industrial employment until a\n  later date and to extend their effective school age appreciably beyond\n  what would once have been sufficient to meet all the commonplace\n  requirements of skilled workmanship.\u201d (Thorstein Veblen, _The Instinct\n  of Workmanship_, p. 309.) This educational process has had\n  consequences beyond those immediately sought. The quickening and\n  enlargement of mind which have followed even the very inadequate\n  education hitherto provided in the common schools, have made a very\n  considerable contribution to the movement for economic emancipation.\n\n\n                                   II\n\n\nLord Acton\u2019s definition of liberty, already quoted, as \u201cthe assurance\nthat every man shall be protected in doing what he believes to be his\nduty against the influence of authority, custom and opinion,\u201d suggests\nthat the test of the quality and measure of liberty in a particular\ncommunity, lies in its attitude to and its treatment of dissent\u2014or to\nput it in another way, its treatment of minorities. And it is plainly\ntrue that the freedom of the mind is a pure fiction except it be freedom\nto dissent from the common acceptances of the community. Speaking\ngenerally, the common tendency is toward the suppression of dissent\nespecially if it be of a radical type, in all kinds of communities,\ndemocratic or otherwise. In some cases, the suppression is dictated by\nthe obvious requirements of an authoritarian polity, in which case it is\nsystematic and deliberate; but this is on the whole less dangerous than\nthe informal and unorganised suppression or opposition which springs out\nof the mental inertia of the multitude, the lethargy which is bred of\nhatred of change, and especially out of the prejudice which is easily\nand successfully generated in the minds of the ignorant by those whose\ninterests would be imperilled by change. It is only by a recognition of\nthe social significance and value of dissent, and the important part it\nhas played in historical progress, that we are likely to reach a proper\nunderstanding of the true democratic attitude to it. In the history of\nreligion, it is plain that dissent has almost always proved to be the\norgan of advance, and if not of advance, at least of a saner balance of\nreligious faith and practice; and it may be said with not a little\nassurance that whether in church or state, the dissent that has gained a\nreasonable following has been evoked by the need of vindicating some\nnatural right or emphasising some truth or fact of experience which was\nneglected or obscured in the traditional syntheses. It may still further\nbe stated, that whereas dissent has been denounced by its contemporaries\nas disruptive and hostile to social solidarity, it has in point of fact\nbeen the product of a larger social vision than that current in the\nexisting conventions. Dissent has usually been created by the desire to\nbroaden the basis of human fellowship.\n\nThis will be seen by an appeal to the mental outlook of the dissenter.\nOf course every dissenting movement has been hampered and prejudiced,\nand its ideals muddied by the adhesion to it of temperamental rebels,\nand the type of crank which gathers around any standard of revolt, just\nas the opposition to dissent has been degraded by its readiness to\naccept the help of \u201clewd fellows of the baser sort.\u201d But when one\npenetrates to the core of the movement in the mind of its chief\nexponents we find ourselves in a peculiarly pure and stimulating air.\nThe great historical rebels have almost invariably been actuated by a\nsocial passion.\n\nSome day perhaps a competent student may give us a work upon the\npsychology of the rebel. That there is something typical about the\nmentality of the great rebels may be gathered even from a cursory\nreading of a few obvious biographies. There is usually an abnormal\nmental sensitiveness combined with great physical restlessness, a keen\ncraving for comradeship, combined with fondness for solitude and lonely\nmeditation, a vivid perception of present evils together with a passion\nfor a future which should restore some ancient simplicity, a\ntendency\u2014once the first step in revolt has been taken,\u2014to broaden the\nrebellious front to include other issues, a frequent admixture of\nintegrity of character with a certain irregularity of conduct. Yet this\nis only the psychological basis; and the real _differentia_ of the true\nrebel lies in the character of the occasion which crystallises his\nmental make-up into a definite course of action.\n\nDisraeli used to speak of the \u201ctwo nations\u201d which inhabited England.\nThese were the privileged people and the disinherited. But that is a\nphenomenon peculiar neither to England nor to the modern world. It is\nthe great permanent line which divides the human race from top to bottom\ninto two classes. We belong either to the exploiting race or the\nexploited, are either top dogs or under-dogs. The Greek cities with all\ntheir emphasis upon freedom yet thought of it as the prerogative of the\nfew. \u201cThere were vague beginnings of a new ideal in Athens, but even in\nAthens personal liberty such as is now connected with the word\n\u2018democracy\u2019 was confined to a very small percentage of the\npopulation.\u201d[22] The remainder were women and slaves upon whose\nsubordination the entire social order rested. The line of division has\nnot always been political or economic. In our own time the acute sense\nof disinheritance has been the main-spring of the feminist movement. In\nreligion especially the cleavage has been conspicuous. The Reformation\ncontroversy about the layman\u2019s rights to receive the chalice in the\nSacrament was at bottom a repudiation of the tradition of a privileged\ncaste; and every considerable reformation of religion has involved a\nchallenge to priestcraft on the part of a disinherited laity.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  G. D. Burns, _Greek Ideals_, p. 76.\n\nIt is the clear perception of this circumstance\u2014the subordination of\nthat mass which we commonly designate \u201cthe people,\u201d the appeal of a\ndisinherited class, of \u201cthe army of workers,\u201d as Lord Morley said, \u201cwho\nmake the most painful sacrifices for the continuous nutrition of the\nsocial organisation,\u201d which constitutes the decisive factor in shaping\nthe rebel\u2019s mind and course of life. It sometimes happens that a\ncombination of circumstances throws the need of the disinherited into\nsharp relief, and the ensuing ferment creates the leader _ad hoc_, as it\nwere. The disintegration of the old feudal bonds in England liberated\nthe social discontent which roused John Ball and made him the inspirer\nof the Peasants\u2019 Revolt. Dr. Lindsay in his _History of the Reformation_\ntells us of the existence of an active and wide-spread evangelical piety\nin Germany long before the Reformation, and it was the sharp contrast\nbetween the spiritual hunger of the people and the barren externality\nand corruption of medi\u00e6val ecclesiasticism, at last brought to a head by\nTetzel\u2019s peddling of indulgences, that precipitated Luther\u2019s crisis and\nwith it the Reformation. The crisis in the early development of Kansas\nundoubtedly marked a stage in John Brown\u2019s development. But whether we\nmay be able or not to trace decisive occasions of this kind in the life\nof the rebel, the common mark of the rebel mind is a passion for the\ncommon people. It has been said of Rousseau that \u201cit was because he had\nseen the wrongs of the poor not from without but from within, not as a\npitying spectator but as one of their own company, that he by and by\nbrought such fire to the attack of the old order and changed the blank\npractice of the older philosophers into a deadly affair of ball and\nshell.\u201d Similarly Professor Dowden says of Shelley that \u201cit was the\nsufferings of the industrious poor that especially claimed his sympathy;\nand he thought of publishing for them a series of popular songs which\nshould inspire them with heart and hope.\u201d[23] Tolstoi, according to\nRomain Rolland, had for the labouring people a \u201cstrange affection,\nabsolutely genuine,\u201d which his repeated disillusionments were powerless\nto shake. Sometimes, as in the case of Glendower, Mazzini and\n\u201cnationalist\u201d rebels generally, it is not the case of a disinherited\nclass but of an oppressed nation which shapes the rebel\u2019s course. The\ngreat rebel in every case is made by the lure of the disinherited.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  Dowden, _Life of Shelley_, p. 437. The \u201cSongs and Poems for the Men of\n  England,\u201d were published in 1819, after Shelley\u2019s death.\n\nBut it is not only compassion for the disinherited which moves the\nrebel, but a profound faith in their power to work out their own\nsalvation. The appeal to the people has been of the essence of rebel\npolicy. The Peasants\u2019 Revolt in England was stimulated by John Ball\u2019s\ndoggerel verse, which was specially intended to stir discontent.\n\u201cWyclif,\u201d says John Richard Green, \u201cappealed, and the appeal is\nmemorable as the first of such a kind in our history, to England at\nlarge. With an amazing industry, he issued tract after tract in the\ntongue of the people itself.\u201d He wrote \u201cin the rough, clear homely\nEnglish\u201d of the ploughman and trader of his day. The Tractarians of a\nlater date were only imitating their great Oxford precursor when they\nwent distributing their tracts from door to door. But Wyclif did not\nconfine his popular appeal to tracts. His order of \u201cpoor preachers,\u201d\n\u201cwhose coarse sermons and long russet dress moved the laughter of the\nclergy, formed a priceless organisation for the diffusion of their\nmaster\u2019s teaching.\u201d John Brown addressed his propaganda at an early\nstage to the negro; and it is hardly doubtful that his hopes chiefly\ncentred at last upon a general rising of negroes in support of his\ncampaign. Long before, John Hus had carried his appeal to the Bohemian\npeople, as Arnauld of Port Royal, convicted of Jansenism at the\nSorbonne, designed to place his case before the French. Pascal\u2019s\nProvincial Letters were deliberately composed as an appeal from the\necclesiastics to the public. The great emphasis upon public preaching\nduring the Reformation was derived from this same faith in the efficacy\nof popular appeal. It is sufficiently well known to need no further\nremark than the reminder that in this way the rebel has made important\ncontributions to the literary as well as the social and religious\nhistory of his people.\n\nThe paradox of the rebel, then, is this, that while he has been assailed\nas a subverter of social order, his own driving force has been a social\nsense quicker and broader than that of his orthodox contemporaries. He\nattacked the existing social organisation only to break down walls that\nhindered fellowship. He heard the call of the disinherited and it became\nin his heart a call to lead them into that heritage of opportunity of\nwhich they were cheated by the cupidity and cunning of the great. He\nassailed the Bastilles of constituted authority, and battered hoary\ninstitutions that people might\u2014at this point or that\u2014come into their\nown. He sought to fling out wide the frontiers of privilege that the\npoor and the outcast might come into a world of larger life.\n\nMr. Wells has recently told us that \u201cfrom the first dawn of the human\nstory\u201d man has been \u201cpursuing the boundary of his possible community.\u201d\nBut the prime agent of this pursuit has been the dissenter. Dissent has\nproved itself to be the growing point of society. Yet the dissenter has\nbeen stoned and hanged by his contemporaries. Must it ever be so? Is\nthere no conceivable social order in which it shall be unnecessary to\ntreat the moral pioneer as a criminal? As yet we have not achieved it.\nOur limit hitherto has been a kind of toleration rather grudgingly\naccorded so long as the dissenter does not disturb us over much. But no\nsociety will ever be truly free until it has reached the point not only\nof frank toleration but of the serious encouragement of dissenting\nopinion. For dissent is after all only a manifestation of the \u201c_elan\nvitale_\u201d of a living society; and it should be greeted with a cheer. A\nsociety incapable of dissent or of tolerating it has entered upon its\nlast phase.\n\n\n                                  III\n\n\nThe problem of dissent, however, goes deeper than the realm of opinion.\nDissenting opinion would not trouble Israel so long as it remained pure\nopinion. The difficulty begins when opinion is translated into action.\nWilliam James said that a belief always discharges itself in an act; and\nthis supplies us with a convenient working distinction between a belief\nand an opinion. But this brings us into a region where other forces\nbegin to operate, and particularly that inner constraint to act in\nobedience to one\u2019s belief which we call conscience. From the days when\nPlato spoke of his [Greek: daim\u00f4n] to ours, the dissenter has always\nclaimed that he acted because he \u201ccould do no other.\u201d He submitted to\nwhat he believed to be the instance of a moral order from which he could\nnot appeal. His contemporaries either derided his conscience or charged\nhim with hypocrisy; but it is worth some consideration that the\ncontemporary judgment was reversed in almost every case.\n\nIt is essential that we should attempt to work out the problem of the\nrelation of conscience to the achievement of liberty in view of the\nextreme danger which lurks in the recent contemptuous criticism of the\nconscientious objector. \u201cThe duty of obeying conscience at all hazards\u201d\n(to quote Newman), is valid only so long as we agree with Newman that\nconscience is \u201cthe aboriginal vicar of Christ,\u201d that is to say, that it\nis the inner embodiment of an irrevocable and infrangible moral order.\nThis does not, of course, imply that every \u201cconscientious objector\u201d\ninterprets the moral order rightly, but simply that it is, as and in so\nfar as he sees it, the moral order for him. His judgment may be\nfallacious; but what is in question is not so much the soundness of his\njudgment as the sincerity of his conviction; and we are rather apt to\nforget that moral sincerity is a greater asset to society than a logical\ncorrectitude. It is difficult to see how any one who takes a \u201creligious\u201d\nview of the world can escape this conviction. Even Lord Morley, who\nspeaks of \u201cthe higher expediencies\u201d where a religious believer might\nspeak of an ultimate moral order, reaches the judgment that this is a\nregion in which no man ought to compromise. It is on this account\nsingular that the most drastic criticism of the conscientious objector,\nboth in England and America, has come from ministers of religion; and it\nis more singular still that this severity of criticism should have\nchiefly come from ministers of the non-authoritarian churches which were\nborn out of the struggle for the rights of conscience.\n\nWhen Gladstone challenged English Catholics to say how they would act in\nthe event of a collision between the commands of the Queen and the Pope,\nthe greatest of modern English Catholics took up the gage and gave\nanswer. \u201cIt is my _rule_,\u201d said Newman, \u201cboth to obey the one and to\nobey the other; but that there is no rule in this world without\nexceptions; and that if either the Pope or the Queen demanded of me an\n\u2018Absolute Obedience,\u2019 he or she would be transgressing the laws of human\nnature and human society. I give an absolute obedience to neither.\nFurther, if ever this double allegiance pulled me in contrary ways which\nin this age of the world I think it never will, then I should decide\naccording to the particular case, which is beyond all rule and must be\ndecided on its own merits. I should look to see what theologians could\ndo for me, what the Bishops and Clergy around me, what my confessor,\nwhat my friends whom I revered, and if, after all, I could not take\ntheir view of the matter, then I must rule myself by my own judgment and\nmy own conscience.\u201d[24] He then goes on to insist upon \u201cthe duty of\nobeying our conscience at all hazards\u201d and supports his view by an\nappeal to weighty Roman authorities. \u201cCertainly,\u201d he concluded, \u201cif I am\nobliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts (which indeed does\nnot seem quite the thing) I shall drink\u2014to the Pope, if you please\u2014still\nto Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.\u201d[25]\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  _Letter to the Duke of Norfolk_, p. 69. (New York, 1875.)\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  _Letter to the Duke of Norfolk_, p. 86. For a luminous discussion of\n  this episode see H. J. Laski, _Studies in the Problems of\n  Sovereignty_, pp. 121f.\n\nForty years before this English controversy, a great French Catholic\nfound himself in this dilemma. No man had more consistently maintained\nthe duty of submission to the Pope than Lamennais. His hard fight for\nreligious liberty in France was precisely for the right of the Catholic\nto render the Pope a full and undivided allegiance in all matters\nrelating to the content and practice of faith. But a time came when the\nPope came to exact from Lamennais a submission he was unable to make. As\nhe would not allow the state to have jurisdiction in the spiritual\nsphere, so he denied to the Pope jurisdiction in the civil. The Pope\nwould not consent to this modification of his claim to authority and\ndemanded of Lamennais an unqualified submission. Whereupon Lamennais\nreplied, \u201cMost Holy Father, a word from your Holiness is always enough\nfor me, not only to obey it in all that religion ordains but to comply\nwith it in all that conscience allows.\u201d[26] \u201cOutside the Church,\u201d he\nwrote to the Countess de Senfft, \u201cin the strictly temporal order, and\nmore particularly in that which touches the affairs of my country, I do\nnot recognise any authority which has the right to impose an opinion\nupon me or to dictate my conduct. I say it emphatically, in that sphere\nwhich is not that of the spiritual power, I will never renounce my\nindependence as a man; nor will I, for thought or action, ever take\ncounsel but of my conscience and my reason.\u201d[27] In this course,\nLamennais followed the judgment of Cardinal Jacobatus, in what Newman\ncalls his \u201cauthoritative work upon councils.\u201d \u201cIf it were doubtful\nwhether a precept (of the Pope) be a sin or not, we must determine thus:\nthat if he to whom the precept is addressed has a conscientious sense\nthat it is a sin and injustice; first, it is his duty to put off that\nsense; but if he cannot nor conform himself to the judgment of the Pope,\nin that case it is his duty to follow his own private conscience, and\npatiently to bear it if the Pope punishes him.\u201d[28]\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  Boutard, _Lamennais, sa via et ses doctrines II._, p. 382.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  _Ibid_, II., p. 370.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  Quoted in Newman, _Letter to the Duke of Norfolk_, p. 85.\n  Nevertheless, when Lamennais followed the instances of his conscience,\n  Pope Gregory XVI. in the Bull _Mirari vos_ took occasion to describe\n  \u201cliberty of conscience\u201d as \u201ccette maxime absurde et erron\u00e9e,\u201d \u201ccette\n  pernicieuse erreur,\u201d \u201ccette libert\u00e9 funeste.\u201d\n\nAt first sight there appears to be no real analogy between the case of\nthe conscientious objector to war, as we have recently known him, and\nthat propounded by Newman. Newman postulates a conflict of loyalties to\ntwo societies whose requirements are at a given point antagonistic,\nbefore invoking the arbitrament of conscience. The conscientious\nobjector is conceived as setting his own private judgment against the\nwill of the only society to which he owes allegiance. That is, at least,\nhow it looks on the surface. But in point of fact, the conscientious\nobjector as a rule bases his action on the ground of loyalty to a\ncertain view of human relationships, that is to say, to a social ideal;\nand in the case of a man like Stephen Hobhouse whose social idealism has\nbeen validated by a unique realism of self-renunciation and sacrifice,\nit would be idle to deny that the conflict of loyalties was very\nconcrete and authentic. The Socialist conscientious objector who sees in\nthe International, if not the city of God, at least its threshold, and\nwho does not conceive himself absolved from his loyalty to it even\nthough the German socialists betrayed it, is moved by no personal\neccentricity, but by a real social emotion. A sympathetic study of the\nconscientious objector brings him according to his measure into the same\ncategory as the historical leaders of dissenting movements. The decisive\nmoral surrenders which quicken and ennoble life are acts of obedience to\na social vision; and the only really moral attitude to men who make\nthese surrenders, however variously they may make them, is that of the\ndedication of a recent volume\u2014\u201cTo all who are fighting for conscience\u2019\nsake, whether in the trenches or in prison.\u201d[29] It is well for the\ncommunity that it should have those within it who are ready to endure\nobloquy and imprisonment rather than be guilty of what is to them a\nmoral apostasy.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Dr. Orchard\u2019s fine _The Outlook for Religion_.\n\nThe conscientious objector\u2014whatever the subject matter of his\ndissent\u2014has always been an exasperating figure to his orthodox\ncontemporaries. This is, of course, largely due to the inertia and the\ndislike of dissent which settle upon middle-aged communities; but at the\npresent time it is probable that the impatience with the conscientious\nobjector springs from other and more respectable sources. Yet by a\ncurious paradox the two principal sources are logically antithetical.\n\nThe first is the circumstance that the mental habit of this generation\nhas been profoundly affected by the supremacy of the machine. Its\ncharacteristic intellectual achievement is the pragmatist philosophy;\nand as much in religion and sociology as in the physical sciences its\nmain pre-occupation is with processes. It requires efficiency for\nimmediate concrete objects rather more than faithfulness to what seems\nto be remote and imponderable abstractions. Conscientious objection is\nirritating because it is so palpably futile, and indeed so vexatiously\nobstructive of the business in hand. Not only does it not _work_, it\nactually hinders the work in which the multitude is engaged. It puts the\nmachine out of gear; in a supreme emergency when all hands should be at\nthe pumps, the conscientious objector puts us to the trouble of putting\nhim in irons. That is obviously\u2014and naturally\u2014how the case looks. The\ngulf between the conscientious objector and common opinion is made by a\ndifference of emphasis upon principle and process. The conscientious\nobjector\u2014being perhaps a sort of reversion to a less sophisticated\nage\u2014puts the process to the test of principle and finds them\nincompatible. Common opinion, in the exercise of a presumably more\nrealistic judgment says, \u201cThis is the only process available; let us\nmake the best use of it we can, and take the risk of coming to terms\nwith principles afterwards, if that be necessary.\u201d The one hitches his\nwagon to a star; the other hitches it to anything that is going his way.\nUpon the merits of this kind of controversy, contemporary judgments are\nnotoriously unsafe; unfortunately, none of us will be living at the time\nwhen it will be possible to say with assurance who was in this case the\ntrue realist after all. Meantime, the conscientious objector, however\ndespised, may help us to a healthier balance between ultimate principle\nand immediate process than any of us have had this many a day.\n\nBut along with the mechanistic habit of thought, there is a survival of\nthe Hegelian idealism which has been chiefly responsible for the modern\napothesis of the national state. It is not the Prussian only who has\naffirmed the sovereignty and omnicompetency of the state and its right\nto undivided obedience; but being more mechanically and remorselessly\nlogical than his neighbours, he has carried the doctrine to a more\ndefinite point. But it seems to be generally assumed in all popular\npolitical thinking that our loyalty to the state should be not only\nfirst but absolute over all the other loyalties of life. In our day this\nview has received, particularly in democratic communities, a subtle and\nplausible reinforcement from the growing emphasis upon the fact of\nsocial solidarity with its implication that the consensus of the\ncommunity fixes the norm of conduct. A man\u2019s conscience should reflect\nthe collective conscience of the society. Moreover, the egalitarian\npopulates of republican democracy are construed to require a uniformity\nof conduct no less complete than that demanded by the political theory\nof autocracy; and the unpardonable sin is to break the ranks. \u201cThe true\ndemocratic principle,\u201d says Lord Acton, \u201cthat every man\u2019s free will\nshall be as unfettered as possible, is taken to mean that the free will\nof the collective people shall be fettered in nothing.\u201d[30] Democracy\nwhich has sloughed the archaism of aristocracy has yet to outgrow the\nAustinian doctrine of sovereignty if it is not to be in danger of\nceasing to be the sanctuary and becoming the grave of liberty, and with\nliberty of much else beside. When it no longer tolerates the\nnonconformist and the moral pioneer, \u201cits doom is writ;\u201d for once more\nlet it be repeated that historically dissent of this type has always\nproved to be the growing point of society.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  Lord Acton, _The History of Liberty_.\n\nThis is not a plea for the conscientious objector but for democracy.\nNewman said that if the Pope spoke against conscience, \u201che would commit\na suicidal act. He would be cutting the ground from under his feet.\u201d The\nauthority of the Pope is not shaken because he concedes to conscience\nthe liberty of dissent; rather it is confirmed. Even more so do the\nstability and growth of democracy depend upon its recognition of the\ninviolability of the individual conscience; for democracy cannot live\nexcept its roots be deep struck in the moral nature of man. The ultimate\nbattleground of democracy is in men\u2019s hearts; and its appeal must at\nlast ever be to men\u2019s consciences. But the appeal to conscience has no\nmeaning unless conscience be free; and when democracy constrains men\u2019s\nconsciences it is writing off its own spiritual charter. Even in time of\nwar it is safer for democracy to let a hundred shirkers go scot-free\nrather than run the risk of penalising an honest conscience. For by its\naffirmation of the sovereignty of conscience it reinforces the\nconsciences of all its members and wins the deeper loyalty of those who\nare constrained to dissent from its policy on particular issues.\n\n\n                                   IV\n\n\nThe growth of the democratic ideal is bound up with the acceptance of\nthe freedom of the mind in all its consequences\u2014even at the risk of some\ndisorder; and the difficulty which political democracy is apt even in\nnormal times to find in conforming to this view is due to the fact that\nit has not yet perceived the logic of its own first principles. This in\nits turn is at least to some extent to be accounted for by the survival\nin democracies of medi\u00e6val conceptions of authority. We do not need to\ntake into account those doctrines of authority which are begotten of the\ndivine right of kings and are now clearly at their last gasp. The divine\nright of kings is, however, assumed to have fallen upon democratic\ngovernments; and though they may not exercise authority for the same\nends as an autocrat of the old style, yet they conceive of it as\noperating in the same way. Theoretically, authority in democracies is\nexercised in the interests of social justice; but we still suppose that\nthe discipline of social justice must be imposed upon men from without.\n\nApparently the assumption underlying the authoritarian position is that\nhuman nature is incurably anarchic, that it is its instinctive tendency\nto be wayward and disruptive, and that there is no remedy for this state\nof things except that of putting it in a cage, of surrounding it with a\nfine mesh of arrests, checks and restraints. This view may owe something\nof its modern strength to the theological doctrine of the total\ndepravity of human nature\u2014a dogma no longer held by sane people. We know\nthat if we do hold a doctrine of original sin it must be held together\nwith the no less true doctrine of original goodness. But the\nauthoritarian is theologically orthodox; man to him is a born rebel, a\nnatural anarchist; he holds that he is organically antisocial; and there\nis therefore nothing to do with him but to treat him like a wild animal\nand put him behind bars. It is of course possible to subdue anarchy in\nthis way, and to produce some kind of order\u2014for a time. But it should be\nobserved that what happens is that liberty is not so much disciplined as\ndenied; and as it appears to be the inherent, and incurable tendency of\nauthority to feed upon itself and to grow fat, the natural consequence\nis the progressive destruction of liberty. The historical reaction from\nthe excess of authority is a violent revulsion to wild and bloody\nanarchy; and over against authority, the only hope of liberty is to\ndivide and to keep it divided.\n\nAs a matter of fact in democratic communities, there is a curious\ndiscrepancy between theory and practice; and\u2014somewhat unusually\u2014our\npractice is better than our theory. The medi\u00e6val doctrine of authority\nstill haunts our political and social thinking; but there are few people\nin a democratic community who behave themselves only when and because\nthere is a policeman about. The whole structure of law (of which the\npoliceman is the symbol) rests upon the proposition that it is possible\nto define and to enforce those moral obligations which are essential to\nthe cohesion and the order of the community, those things which members\nof a society must do or abstain from doing if the society is to hold\ntogether at all. Law does not do more than state the lowest common terms\nof social duty. It does not cover \u201cthe whole duty of man.\u201d The maximum\nof legal obligation is the minimum of moral obligation. That is why the\nlaw does not touch ordinary folk\u2014except, of course, in formal\nadjustments of affairs of business or property. In the region of\npersonal conduct, law is for decent folk in normal times a pure\nirrelevancy. We not only keep the law but we to some degree transcend\nit, and we do so without thinking about it. The policeman has no terrors\nfor us because we do not approach his frontiers; and he has terrors only\nfor the wilful social misfit whose native anarchy is still untamed. Law,\nthat is, imposes the discipline of social justice only upon the\nexceptional case, the individual who is contemptuous or negligent of his\nsocial duty. Upon the great majority of people it is imposed from\nwithin\u2014sometimes indeed by the fear of public opinion, but chiefly by a\nmore or less effective social sense. We are free from the law not\nbecause we take care not to break it, but because a higher principle has\nlifted us outside and beyond its bounds. Our righteousness truly exceeds\nthe righteousness of the Scribes and the Pharisees, that is, of the\nlegal mind; and that is because a higher principle of righteousness is\nat work within us. This higher principle of righteousness is of course\nno other than our own independent and energised sense of social\nobligation. The degree to which it is effectual may and does vary in\ndifferent persons; but it is not to be questioned that democracy exists\nbecause of the increasing efficiency of the inward sense of social\nobligation in its members. Its further development is contingent upon\nthe measure in which this inner constraint supersedes coercive machinery\nas the organ of social justice.\n\nIt is, of course, better for men to live under law than in anarchy. What\nwe have to understand concerning law and its machinery is that it is a\nstage in the evolution of social order and in our education into true\nfreedom. At the same time it must not be forgotten that the law itself\nmay become a real hindrance to this process. Just because law is a\n_definition_ of obligation, it tends to be regarded as fixing the\noutmost limits of social duty; and whatsoever we do beyond these limits\nranks as work of supererogation. That is bad enough; but worse may\nhappen. One may suppose that outside these limits, any kind of conduct\nis admissible; and law, despite its intention, may therefore arrest the\ngrowth of the social sense. The social sense, that is, is expected to\noperate up to frontier line defined by the law; beyond that point, it is\nnot called upon to act. We require to introduce into men\u2019s minds a\ndifferent conception of law from that popularly current. It is the\noffice of the law to make itself superfluous; and its administration\nrequires not a superstitious veneration of its majesty or a pedantic\nrespect for its letter, but humanity and common sense. The law is\novermuch conceived as our gaoler; properly understood, it is, as St.\nPaul said of the Mosaic Law, our \u201cschoolmaster.\u201d But so long as we talk\nabout \u201cvindicating\u201d the law more than reclaiming the offender\u2014as the\nlegal mind is apt to do\u2014so long will men tend to regard the law not as a\nstepping-stone to higher things, but as an irksome restraint; and while\nwe indulge in tall talk about the majesty of the law, we make\nlaw-abidingness \u201cthe law and the prophets,\u201d and jeopardise our chance of\neffecting that increasing enfranchisement of the social sense in which\nalone is the hope of the democratic ideal.\n\nThe further development of the democratic principle and the achievement\nof a genuine freedom would appear to be contingent upon the growth of\nthe interior discipline of social justice with a consequent diminution\nin the influence of exterior legal sanctions. If society is to be\nregarded as in any sense truly organic, and if consequently its vitality\nis to be measured by its capacity for variation, it is plain that it\nmust be released from the tendency to uniformity which is entailed in a\n\u201creign of law.\u201d Augustine\u2019s definition of liberty is pertinent here\u2014Love\nGod and do as you please, and translated out of the idiom of religion\ninto that of sociology (which is like unto it) the rule runs: Love your\nneighbour and do as you please. Authoritarianism makes inevitably for\nregimentation; and while it may in this way repress the waywardness of\nindividualism, it does so at the expense of that precious thing,\nindividuality. The task of democracy is that of destroying individualism\nand of cultivating individuality. Liberty is the condition in which a\nman may be true to himself through everything, and may live out the\nlogic of his own distinctive spiritual endowments. But because\npersonality is essentially social, a man cannot be true to himself until\nhe is in a true sense delivered from himself. An effectual social\ndiscipline is a necessary condition of a real liberty. It is not a check\nupon liberty but its indispensable concomitant. Without it, liberty\novershoots its bolt and destroys itself.\n\nBut this relation is a mutual one. Not only does a social conscience\nsafeguard and discipline liberty; but its own mating with liberty works\nfor its liberation. We have seen how the influence of legalistic\npreconceptions tends to arrest the growth of the social conscience; how\nthe school of law may become the prison of legalism. The social\nconscience is something more than a moral critic or invigilator; it has\nthe quality of a creative energy; and once it is \u201cfree from the law,\u201d it\nis for ever trying to outdo itself. It is indeed only an adventurous\nsocial conscience of this kind that will avail to overcome those\ndistinctions of class which constitute the immemorial and multiform\nschism of our race. We have to work not only for the socialisation of\nliberty but also for the liberation of our social instincts; and this is\nto be done by an equal mating of liberty and the social conscience. This\nis, in the main, the office of the teacher and the preacher, but\nmeantime a great deal is to be done by a systematic effort to multiply\nand develop those social contacts which already exist either actually or\npotentially.\n\nThe final reason for this mating is not merely to make room for dissent\nin the community. That, indeed, is only an incidental thing which serves\nto test the quality and extent of the community\u2019s freedom. Freedom is\nnecessary because it is the only condition under which creative\nself-expression becomes really possible. The human spirit must have\nindependence and initiative if it is to be its whole self. It was not\nmade for regimentation; it was made for a distinctive life of its own.\nBut its very constitution tells us that if it is to attain to a fruitful\nfreedom, it must achieve something besides freedom. The motto of a\ndemocracy resolute to live out the full implicates of its first\nprinciples must not be freedom alone, but _freedom and fellowship_.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter VI.\n                      THE PRACTICE OF FELLOWSHIP.\n\n    \u201cWe are members one of another.\u201d\u2014ST. PAUL.\n\n    \u201cForsooth, brothers, fellowship is heaven, and lack of fellowship is\n    hell; fellowship is life and lack of fellowship is death; and the\n    deeds that ye do on earth, it is for fellowship\u2019s sake that ye do\n    them; and the life that is in it, that shall live on and on for\n    ever, and each one of you part of it, while many a man\u2019s life upon\n    the earth from the earth shall wane.\n\n    \u201cTherefore I bid you not to dwell in hell but in heaven; or while ye\n    must, upon earth, which is part of heaven, and forsooth no foul\n    part.\u201d\u2014WILLIAM MORRIS, _The Dream of John Ball_.\u201d\n\n    \u201cSans d\u2019\u00e9galit\u00e9 donc, point d\u2019unit\u00e9; sans libert\u00e9 point d\u2019\u00e9galit\u00e9;\n    mais point de libert\u00e9 non plus sans des devoirs mutuels\n    volontairement accomplis, c\u2019est-a-dire accomplis par la volont\u00e9 se\n    portant d\u2019elle-m\u00eame et sans contrainte a tout ce qui produit l\u2019union\n    entre les \u00eatres \u00e9gaux; autrement chacun n\u2019aurait d\u2019autre r\u00e8gle que\n    son int\u00e9r\u00eat, sa passion. Et du conflit de tant de passions, de tant\n    d\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eats oppos\u00e9s na\u00eetraient aussit\u00f4t, avec la guerre, la servitude\n    et la tyrannie. Or, l\u2019ob\u00e9issance libre au devoir est une ob\u00e9issance\n    d\u2019amour; libert\u00e9 lorsque l\u2019amour s\u2019affaiblit, la libert\u00e9 d\u00e9cline\n    m\u00eame proportion. A la place de l\u2019union volontaire et morale, dont il\n    est le principle, la force, loi des brutes, op\u00e9re une union purement\n    mat\u00e9rielle.\u201d\u2014LAMENNAIS, _Affaires de Rome_.\n\nIT is usually assumed that the distinctively social end of life begins\n\u201cafter business hours.\u201d There is, we say, \u201cno room for sentiment in\nbusiness,\u201d\u2014which is part of the intolerable price we pay for our\nsubjection to the economic motive. In business the presumption is that\nwe are all competitors; when business is over we are prepared to be\nfriends. The formality and the insincerity of much social intercourse in\nour time\u2014not to speak of its utter fruitlessness for any healthy human\ngood\u2014has its origins largely in the banishment of fellowship from the\n\u201cbusiness end\u201d of life. This is not to say that there is not a great\ndeal of wholesome human intercourse in modern life or that there are not\ngenuine friendships between business competitors and between principals\nand subordinates in industry; but it is generally true that we conceive\nof commerce and industry as admitting of no extensive exercise of the\nhumanities; and for this habit of mind we are punished by a deep\nimpoverishment of life.\n\nThere is a sense in which the struggle for liberty may be regarded as\nbeing essentially a struggle to broaden the basis of human fellowship;\nand it is undoubtedly true that forms of privilege are the most prolific\ncauses of social schism. No community possesses the conditions of real\nfellowship while it is (as modern communities are) divided into topdogs\nand underdogs, whether the topdogs be aristocrats or plutocrats, and the\nunderdogs be serfs or wage-slaves. For the poison of privilege is apt to\npermeate the whole body; and an exploited class may itself be composed\nof exploiters. In our day the quest and the possession of pecuniary\nadvantage has so grievously muddied the springs of fellowship that we\nlive in a chronic temper of mutual suspicion and distrust. We do not\nconstitute living societies; we are but collections of individuals who\nlive together because we must, and come no nearer to each other than is\nnecessary for the indispensable common operations of life. Lord Morley\nhas pointed out that the business of the Irish Land League lay as much\nin adjusting feuds among its own members as in carrying on their common\nfeud against the landlords. Within small circles there is, of course,\nmuch genuine friendly exchange and co-operation; there are holiday\noccasions when good temper and good fellowship rule; but for the rest,\nwe chiefly live under jungle law.\n\nIt is essential to the creation of a living society that we should\nrecognise that the principle of fellowship is a condition of the highest\nfruitfulness of human effort in every part of life. But fellowship in\nthis connection means something more than the casual and superficial\n_camaraderie_ of one\u2019s leisure hours. It must be translated into\nconcrete policies and into organised and sustained co-operation. In this\nsense its application to industry is one of the first conditions of its\nrestoration in other regions and in other senses. Indeed, it may be\nregarded as the natural complement of that change in the worker\u2019s status\nwhich we have seen to be impending. Free men will flow into fellowship\nas the cistern to the river; and the \u201cdemocratic control\u201d of industry is\nthe name we give to the practice of fellowship in industry which is the\nclear sequel to the doctrine of partnership.\n\nMr. Sidney Webb, as we have seen, advocates the grant of a\n\u201cconstitution\u201d to industry; but this proposal suffers from the inherent\ndefect of the well-meaning experiments in co-partnership and\nprofit-sharing of which there have been not a few in recent years. This\ndefect is that all alike preserve the line of privilege. The benefits\nare granted as concessions from above; and generally as incentives to\ngreater assiduity. There can be no objection to the granting of\nconcessions from above so long as those who are above come down and\nstand on the same footing as those below. But so long as a vestige of\nthe old differentiation of superior and inferior, of master and servant\nremains, not all the nominal co-partnership and profit-sharing in the\nworld can satisfy the conditions of real partnership. While for instance\nthe administrative and executive branches of an industry remain out of\nthe sphere of co-partnership, the partnership is a polite fiction; and\nit is only by the passing of all the departments of an industry,\nadministrative as well as operative, into the control of all who carry\nthem on, that democratic conditions can be established. The theory of\npartnership implies an actual interest in and an actual control over all\nthe divisions of an industry; and, while this does not imply that\ndirection and leadership and the powers of discipline will not still be\nvested in individuals, these individuals will owe their position not to\nany antecedent privilege but to the will and consent of the workers as a\nwhole.\n\nOn the surface there seems to be a danger lest such an arrangement may\nlead to an exclusive and particular fellowship within separate\nindustries and therefore may militate against the larger fellowship of\nthe community, a fellowship, that is, of producers against consumers.\nBut it is not contemplated that the control of the workers\u2014whether\noperative or administrative\u2014shall be absolute over their industry. That\nwill in turn be subject to the will of the commonwealth as a whole\u2014this\nsuperior authority being made effective by such devices as the control\nof raw material. This particular danger may, however, be very easily\nexaggerated. After all, every producer is a consumer; and the\nco-operative societies have shown that it is possible to create a very\nfruitful fellowship of consumer and producer. Moreover, this is a danger\nwhich we imagine largely because we argue from existing conditions. It\nwill be greatly diminished as the economic motive ceases to exercise its\nwithering influence upon men.\n\nBut it stands to reason that men will do better and more faithful work\nunder conditions which give them a direct interest in and control over\ntheir work. Both the quantity and quality of work suffer to-day because\nnothing is left to the worker\u2019s sense of honour and responsibility. It\nis only a more or less irksome necessity to which the worker goes\napathetically and from which he turns with relief. But convert it into a\nsocial task in which fellowship may be actually realised in a genuine\nparticipation in control, where management is an affair of common\ncounsel and not of autocratic fiats, where the ideal of public service\nhas superseded the purpose of private gain, and you set free\npotentialities both of quality and quantity of workmanship of which\nunder the present demoralising conditions it is not possible to form a\nconception.\n\nClearly the reality of fellowship in industry must be validated by\nmaking every position of greater responsibility open to every worker;\nand appointment to such positions should be by choice of the workers.\nThat the workers may be trusted to make good appointments is\ndemonstrated by the sagacity which has generally been manifested in the\nselection of their Union leaders; and this is a far more certain\nguarantee of effective management than the present system which often\nassigns incompetent men to important positions on grounds of kinship or\n\u201cinfluence.\u201d It further goes without saying that a genuine partnership\nimplies the right of withdrawal. A man must be free to choose his work\nand the place where he works. Freedom is of the very essence of\nfellowship. Anything of the nature of coercion or conscription would be\ndeadly to the spirit which it is desired to create.\n\n\n                                   II\n\n\nNaturally a living society will require a living fellowship in the\nordering of its public affairs; and it is true that the arrest and\ncorruption of democracy\u2014wheresoever those ills have befallen it\u2014are due\nmore to the ignorance and the indifference of the mass of the people in\nrespect of their common affairs than to any other single cause. This is\never the opportunity of the demagogue and the spoilsman. Where there is\nno vision, said the ancient scribe, the people perish; but the people\nperish no less certainly where there is no common thought. The mental\nindolence and inertia of the public and the incompetency of public\ncriticism is the danger of the statesman, and the very life of the\ncarpet-bagging politician. The extent of this ignorance and\napathy\u2014beyond the narrow limits where our pockets are concerned\u2014is\nappalling. Especially in regard to the external relationships of their\nrespective states, the common people have lived in the past in great\ndarkness, and as the war has shown, in the shadow of death. If the\nmasses of the European peoples had been in 1914, as well-informed\nconcerning their neighbours as they are to-day (and this does not say\nvery much), the war might well have never happened; and it is well that\nwe should remember that the democratic control of foreign policy, of\nwhich we justly hope much, will prove a vain thing without systematic\neducation of the people in the matters which are gathered up in the\nexpression \u201cforeign policy.\u201d\n\nAnd, indeed, the main root of indifference is ignorance; for we are\nvitally interested in nothing of which we do not know something. It is\nto education that we must look for our main remedy. Some gleams of light\nhave indeed already begun to pierce our darkness. We have commenced to\neducate school children in the rudiments of civic obligation; and there\nis no reason why history and geography should not be taught, not as at\npresent to stimulate national pride or commercial efficiency, but to\ngenerate a sympathetic and comprehensive outlook upon human\nrelationships. To this subject we shall need to turn in more detail\npresently; here all we need is to premise that the stimulation and\nmobilisation of common thought requires an education which shall equip\nthe citizen with a system of knowledge and ideas which will enable him\nto respond to the challenge of the problems of common life and approach\nthem with intelligence and sympathy. No one who is familiar with the\nproceedings of parliaments and congresses will require proof of the\nexistence of this need.\n\nBut this is no more than a beginning. To education must be added the\nopportunity of free and unfettered discussion. Every manner of embargo\nor restraint on thought must be removed. When a Cambridge don once said\nthat morning chapel should be compulsory on the ground that if there\nwere no compulsory religion there would be no religion at all,\nThirlwall, afterwards Bishop of St. David\u2019s, replied that the\ndistinction was too subtle for his apprehension. No less does restraint\nupon thought lead to the destruction of thought. Yet thought, just\nbecause it is free, requires some method of test and correction; and\nthis is supplied by discussion. In this region especially is fellowship\nthe necessary co-efficient of freedom. At present the comparative\npaucity of opportunities of systematic discussion, outside small circles\nand coteries, has led to that lack of mental independence to which the\nmodern press owes its ordinate power. The pathetic, not to say tragic,\nreadiness of the multitude to follow any demagogue in the press who\nshouts loudly enough is a manifest sign of dangerous mental\nincompetency. The Northcliffes and the Hearsts owe their influence to\nthe incapacity of the multitude to think for itself; and no multitude\nwill ever be able to think which does not acquire the habit of thinking\ntogether.\n\nIt is impossible to estimate the value of the New England Town Meeting\nas an organ of discipline in common thought; and some such focus of\npublic discussion there should be in every community. Nowadays the\ncommunity elects a board or a council and relegates the function of\ndiscussion to this body, and so far as its local affairs are concerned\ngoes to sleep until the next election, except perhaps for a small\nminority chiefly composed of hostile critics. This elected body rarely\nreaches a plane of initiative and leadership in thought even within the\nnarrow province committed to its care. Its discussions chiefly gather\naround minor points of administration; rarely do they reveal any degree\nof constructive originality. Yet the public spirit which is the life of\na community needs continual stimulus; and this stimulus is dependent on\ndiscussion. It is a frequent, almost a constant complaint against\nmunicipal bodies that they are composed of persons who have axes of\ntheir own to grind, or who, though they are not personally corrupt, are\npromoting the advantage of particular interests. There is no way out of\nthis difficulty save by the creation of community centres for regular\nand free public discussion. Those who are charged with the conduct of\npublic affairs\u2014whether local or national\u2014should be open to continuous\nand reasoned popular criticism for which an election allows no\nopportunity.\n\nThe rapid extension of the public Forum in America takes to some extent\nthe place once filled by the Town Meeting; but its outlook is too\ngeneral and its constitution too casual to enable it to discharge the\nfunctions of the latter. Yet it has a very important office to fill; and\nin many respects it is the most promising object in the outlook for\ndemocracy in America. As yet it is too dependent upon the platform; and\nquestions do not form an adequate alternative to reasoned discussion.\nThese are, however, defects which will be remedied as the movement\ndevelops. It is not at all improbable that the churches may find a way\nof recovering their social usefulness by the promotion of the Forum\nmethod. Dr. Kirsopp Lake has a theory that just as the sacramental stage\nof religion has passed, so now the \u201csermon\u201d stage is passing, and we are\nentering upon the \u201cdiscussion\u201d stage. It may be so. Certainly no human\nconcern so stands in need of vigorous and radical discussion as does\nreligion; and now that it becomes increasingly evident that the day is\nwholly gone when religion could be cultivated as an isolated interest\nunrelated to the secular concerns of life, it will be of untold\nadvantage to the church and to society, in the interests of truth and\nright thinking, that the free discussion of religion and public affairs\nin the closest possible relation to one another should be seriously\nfostered. Neither religion nor any view of the world which does not\ntouch life at every point is likely to survive in an age which is slowly\nlearning the unity of all life. In modern England, the Trade Union\nbranches have in many cases proved to be educational centres of the\nutmost value; but even more than the Trade Unions has the Socialist\npropaganda, with its challenge to discussion, proved a fruitful organ of\ncommon thought on public affairs.\n\nWhen we pass from the plane of local to that of national interests we\nfind a state of things which provokes wonder that any shred of democracy\nhas survived it. The system of political parties has its roots in human\nnature; and we are never likely to outlive it. The quip that we are all\nborn either little Liberals or little Conservatives has beneath it the\nfact of a profound and perhaps permanent difference of temperament.\nThere are those\u2014and probably will always be\u2014who take less kindly to\nchange than others; and in this difference there will always be ample\nroom and occasion for discussion and criticism. It is also well to\nremember that the conflict of sincerely held opinion is one of the most\nfruitful forms of co-operation in the search for truth. But there are\nfew existing lines of party division which reflect a genuine cleavage of\nconviction. The present opposition of Republican and Democrat in America\nseems to have only a distant connection with that profound division of\nopinion in which the opposition first originated. In Great Britain,\nLiberal and Conservative have stood ideally for the two necessary\nprinciples of freedom and order, progress and stability; but the party\nconflict has raged chiefly in recent times around the question of power.\nIt has been a duel of the \u201cins\u201d and \u201couts.\u201d There are, of course,\nLiberals like Lord Morley, and Conservatives like Lord Hugh Cecil, whose\npolitical attachments rest upon deep and reasoned conviction; but\nreasoned conviction is not the main subject of interest in the Whips\u2019\noffices. The final judgment upon the nature of the party struggle is to\nbe sought in the practical business of electioneering. Direct corruption\nis on the whole rare in democratic countries; but the organisation of\nthe party vote\u2014whether in England or America\u2014is a wholly scandalous and\ndeplorable business. The practice of canvassing for votes, attended\nfrequently with intimidation and generally with a good deal of insincere\ncajoling, the easily made and easily forgotten electioneering promises,\nthe frantic shepherding of sluggish voters to the polling booth,\u2014these\nthings show how little substance of conviction and thought there is in\nthe modern political game. Canvassing is sometimes defended as a method\nof political education; occasionally in competent hands it no doubt is\nso; but anyone who is acquainted with electioneering methods knows that\nthe education is merely incidental to securing the promise of a vote.\nCanvassing would conceivably serve a useful purpose if the attempt to\nextract the promise of a vote were declared to be in fact what it is in\nspirit\u2014a violation of the Ballot Act. It is questionable, however, how\nlong the practice of canvassing would survive this curtailment. And in\naddition to this, all inducements to drag unwilling and indifferent\ncitizens to the poll should be made illegal. Democracy is not\nnecessarily government by the mob. It is rather government by the\nintelligent and the interested; and the remedy for popular apathy here,\nas elsewhere, is proper education.\n\nThe two-party system of Great Britain, and in the United States, may in\ntime be replaced by the group system as it prevails on the continent of\nEurope.[31] The group system is subject to the evils and the\ndisadvantages attending the two-party system; but it has the distinct\nadvantage of making possible a larger range and variety of criticism.\nNevertheless, whether under the two-party or group conditions, it is\ndoubtful whether the present territorial arrangement of representation\ncan ever secure a truly democratic government. The territorial\narrangement is derived from a period which long antedates the railroad;\nand improved means of communication have created national groups with\nspecialised but ultra-local interests, and for the purposes of\ndemocratic government the Labour Union (for instance) is as important a\nunit as the county. It is absurd that the only way in which the specific\ninterests of organised labour can be represented in the House of Commons\nis by putting Labour candidates in competition with Liberals and\nConservatives in mixed constituencies. Some alleviation of this anomaly\nmay be found in the plan of proportional representation; but this does\nnot fully provide for the necessity of securing direct and adequate\nrepresentation of functional and cultural associations in the councils\nof the nation. It is an anachronism that to-day the mind of the nation\nshould be gathered solely on a geographical basis, when the actual\nliving mind of the nation increasingly resides in the various groups\ninto which men form themselves on the basis of interests that are no\nlonger determined by local considerations. The representation of\nnon-territorial constituencies in the councils of the nation raises the\nquestion of the nature of the state which must be considered separately.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  The results of the last General Election in England seem to bear out\n  this anticipation.\n\nFreedom and fulness of discussion is the very breath of life to popular\ninstitutions, and wheresoever any problem or range of problems is\nwithdrawn from public discussion, there is a virtual denial of the\ndemocratic principle. When, for instance, and in particular, foreign\npolicy is conducted behind closed doors, a control over the destinies of\nthe people is vested in individuals or in a class of individuals which\nis as real and as monstrous as that of an autocrat; and democracy is\ndenied in its most sensitive and critical part. It is true that the\npractice of secret diplomacy has survived because nations have been too\nlittle concerned about their external affairs; and no plausible\narguments about \u201cdelicate situations\u201d and the like could resist for a\nmoment the insistence of an intelligent democracy upon the management of\nits own affairs. If democracy is to survive at all, it must make up its\nmind speedily that the principle of its inner life shall not be denied\nin its outer. But if democracy is to have a mind at all, it must learn\nto use the mind it has; and the chief stimulus to this end would be the\nmultiplication of centres of discussion. This would be materially helped\nif government departments were required to produce not only ponderous\nblue-books which only bewilder the common man, and official documents\nintelligible only to the expert, but popular accounts, published\nregularly, of their proceedings. The press should be used far more\nextensively for this purpose; and even the children of the public\nschools should be provided with appropriate graded summaries of the acts\nof the national government. Then on the basis of this material for\ndiscussion, the social debating society, the reading circle, the Forum\nand all such groups would become the living and increasing springs of\ndemocracy.\n\nIn speaking of education we are far too apt to confine the word to the\neducation of children; but what may be done in the education of adults\nand at the same time in the stimulation of fellowship in thought, is\nwell shown by the achievement of the Workers\u2019 Educational Association in\nEngland. The education of the working class is an idea which dates back\nto the social and political ferment of the early nineteenth century\u2014the\nearliest expression being the Mechanics\u2019 Institute movement. This was\nfollowed by the Working Men\u2019s College movement under Frederick Denison\nMaurice and his friends. Then came the educational experiments, first of\nthe Rochdale Pioneers in 1840, and then of the Co-operative Societies,\nout of which grew ultimately the University Extension movement. The\nexisting Worker\u2019s Educational Association originated in an alliance of\nthe educational activities of the Co-operative, Trade Union and\nUniversity Extension movements. It was based upon \u201cthe vital principle\nthat there could be no complete education of working people unless it\nwas a result of the combination of working men and women and scholars,\nrespectively experts in demand and supply.\u201d It is certain\u2014and the war\nhas provided many instances of it\u2014that this alliance of worker and\nscholar has done much to break down the partition wall of class\nprejudice; and the \u201ctutorial class\u201d has in particular been a very\nfruitful agent of fellowship and education. \u201cThe days of the W.E.A.\u201d (as\nit is called) says Mr. Alfred Mansbridge, its devoted and able\nsecretary, \u201chave been few so far; but it has already demonstrated the\nsoundness of its theories\u2014to take one instance alone\u2014by the development\nof the University Tutorial Class movement which conforms in method to\nthat of Plato so far as question and answer developed in discussion are\nconcerned. In England alone over eight thousand men and women have\npassed through these courses which are organised in connection with\nevery University and University College. If it were not for the clear\ndemonstration of experience, it would seem fatuous to expect that men\nand women who have undergone no educational training other than that\nprovided in the few years of attendance at the elementary school would\nbe willing to attend classes for three years, and in some cases for as\nmany as seven or eight years. It must be remembered that the discipline\nof the class though self-imposed is severe. No absence is allowed for\nother than unavoidable causes. Moreover, their purpose is the\nacquisition of knowledge as assisting the fulfilment of an educational\nideal which is conceived not in the interests of the individual but in\nthe interests of citizenship. The level of intellectual achievement\ntestified to by many eminent educationists is such as to warrant the\nBoard of Education in making a regulation to the effect that \u2018the\ninstruction must aim at reaching within the limits of the subject\ncovered, the standard of University work in honours.\u2019\u201d[32] While the\nemphasis in this account is laid chiefly upon the educational aspects of\nthe movement those who are acquainted with its working lay much stress\nupon the part which the practice and realisation of fellowship play in\nit.[33] The sense of common quest is at once a source and a result of\nthe movement: and it is not open to any question that the W.E.A. is one\nof the most powerful organs of the new democracy now existing. Alongside\nthe W.E.A. in Great Britain is also the Adult School movement, which\nchiefly under the auspices of the Society of Friends is doing much\nsimilar, though not so severe work. It gathers together every Sunday\nmorning in all parts of the country thousands of working men and women\nin its many hundred schools to study not only \u201cthe principles of the\nlife and teaching of Jesus, but the manifold and perplexing problems of\nnational and international life.\u201d In such fruitful activities as these\nwill the mind and the temper of the coming democracy be created. These\nmen and women are learning the practice of freedom and fellowship in\nthought, which is the fundamental democratic method.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  _Contemporary Review_, June, 1918.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  An interesting sign of where the members of the W.E.A. themselves feel\n  the essence of the movement to lie is seen in the inscription on a\n  memorial cross erected in the Parish Church of Lambeth, London, in\n  memory of three tutors of the W.E.A.:\n\n      \u201cIn memory of\n       Philip Anthony Brown, 1886-1915.\n       Alfred Edward Bland, 1881-1916.\n       Arthur Charleswood Turner, 1881-1918.\n\n  Tutors of the Workers\u2019 Educational Association. They lived for\n  Fellowship in England and died for it in France.\u201d\n\n                                       _The Challenge_, July 19th, 1918.\n\n\n                                  III\n\n\nNow that we have come to acknowledge not only that Jack\u2019s vote is as\ngood as his master\u2019s, but that Jill\u2019s vote is as good as Jack\u2019s, we have\nlaid the train of a further change in the relations of men and women.\nFor just as surely as the worker has discovered that political equality\ndoes not of necessity remove economic disability, and is now beginning\nto demand economic emancipation, so also women will pass on from the\nacquisition of political equality to a demand for economic equality.\nIndeed, the demand is already being made. The war has served to reveal\nthe arbitrary and illusory character of the assumptions which closed\ncertain occupations to women. We know that the number of occupations for\nwhich women are temperamentally or physically unfitted is comparatively\nsmall. There are obvious reasons for believing that some few trades will\nremain permanently undesirable for women; but the immediate fact that\nconfronts us is that the traditional line of demarcation has been swept\naway under the stress of war needs; and that we shall have to work out\nin the school of experience a new classification of occupations more\nconsonant with the new facts.\n\nSome years ago there was much discussion in England concerning a high\nlegal decision that a woman was not a \u201cperson\u201d within the meaning of a\ncertain Act of Parliament. This was symptomatic of a general survival of\nthe view which assigned women to a slightly sub-human class; and the\nvitality of this view is still more considerable than many hopeful minds\nare willing to think. Yet it is only when we have educated ourselves\ninto the conception of woman which attributes to her a distinct\npersonality of her own, with an end in and for herself, and with all the\nrights and privileges, the freedom and the independence appertaining to\nit, that we shall approach the problem of the relations of men and women\nfrom a genuinely democratic standpoint. Woman is commonly regarded as\nhaving a function rather than an individual end. It is her part to\npreserve the race. Her peculiar vocation is child-bearing. It cannot,\nhowever, be affirmed with too much emphasis that the perpetuation of the\nrace is no more the task of woman than of man. The heavier end of the\nphysical burden of race-preservation certainly falls upon the woman; but\nthis fact does not indicate that this is the purpose for which she\nexists. Her traditional assignment to this role, and the consequent\nlimitation of her circle of experience and interest, the virtual\nincarceration of the great majority of women to the \u201chome,\u201d and the\ndenial to them of any real participation in the larger concerns of the\ncommon life, must cease if social existence is to achieve the balance\nnecessary to stable and healthy progress.\n\nThe preservation of the race can be left to look after itself.\nRace-suicide only becomes a peril when the relations of men and women\nbecome perverted and unnatural as they commonly do in our present social\norder. When at one end of society, the bringing up of families entails\nan economic burden too heavy to be borne, and at the other, the hedonism\nwhich accompanies excessive wealth tends to a sensuality which refuses\nto accept the natural risks and to pay the natural price of the\nsex-relation, a poisonous arrest is unavoidably laid upon the normal\noperation of the sex-instincts. The most easily perverted endowment of\nhuman nature is sex, and it cannot retain a balanced and healthy\nfunctioning under disordered conditions of life. The incessant\ndiscussion of marriage and divorce misses the point largely because it\nignores the background of the problem. While we regard the physical\ndistinction of sex as the primary fact to be considered in relation to\nwoman, and still cling to the obsession so dear to bourgeois\nrespectability that her business is motherhood and \u201cher place is the\nhome,\u201d so long, that is, as we regard her life and its purpose as\ndependent upon man, so long will judgment be deflected from its true\npole at its very source. Wholesome and free men and women will continue\nto fall in love with one another and will want to have children of each\nother, where to-day because their relations are unwholesome and unequal,\nthey tend only to seek possession of one another, without any\ndisposition (not to speak of eagerness) to welcome the fruit of their\nunion; and too often with the deliberate intention of preventing the\nfruitage. For the disorder which leads to this confusion of the\nsex-relation, the first remedy is to establish the independence of the\nwoman.\n\nThe problem of marriage will remain acute\u2014and, indeed, ultimately\ninsoluble\u2014until the contracting parties enter it upon the basis of an\nequal partnership. The conception of marriage as a \u201ccareer\u201d for women\nhas done much to destroy the only conditions under which marriage can\never be successful. The freedom and spontaneity of the relation between\nmen and women is made impossible by those calculations of position and\nwealth which the career theory of marriage requires. While it is\nnominally the case that no woman is compelled to marry, it is actually\nthe fact that many women\u2014in the _bourgeois_ classes, most women\u2014are so\nbrought up that marriage becomes their only escape from indigence. The\nfact of woman\u2019s independence should be made concrete and real by\nrequiring that every woman shall be self-supporting, that is to say,\nthat she shall share in the necessary industrial processes of the\ncommunity or do some work of acknowledged social worth. Naturally the\nlatter category includes the bearing and upbringing of children; for\nthan this there is no work more fundamental or of greater social worth.\nThis requires the economic independence of the mother; and since the\nsocial reconstruction postulated in these pages, involves in some form\nor other the establishment of an universal minimum standard, the mother\nwill not only be economically independent but will also be released from\nthe harassing task of bringing up a growing family upon a stationary\nincome.\n\nIt will be argued against such proposals as these that they endanger the\nsanctity of the family. But this criticism possesses neither grace nor\nforce in a generation which has permitted industrial conditions to\nprevail which have virtually destroyed the home-life of the\nworking-classes. The only assumption on which it is safe to proceed in\ndealing with this question is that anything entitled to be called a\n\u201chome life\u201d is quite exceptional among large masses of the population.\nBoth the physical setting of the home\u2014the house\u2014and the economic\ncondition of its members rob the home of that quality of sanctuary and\nbase which is of the essence of a genuine _home_. Our problem is to\nrecreate the home, the setting of that social group of man, woman and\nchild, which we call the family, and which is the natural nucleus of the\ncommonwealth, and the moral gymnasium where the young should best learn\nthe arts of fellowship. The housing question has its own importance in\nthe problem; but of infinitely more importance to the recovery of home\nlife is the establishment of the economic independence of the woman. So\nlong as custom and necessity place her in a position of dependence on\nthe man, so long will she be denied the freedom which is essential to\nperfect comradeship. Her present status denies the equality which is\nnecessary to fellowship; and much of the unhappiness of modern marriage\nis due to the intelligible chafing of women against the conditions which\ndependence and inferiority of status impose upon her. That many married\npeople succeed in overcoming this initial handicap is true; but that is\ndue to certain qualities in themselves and does not in the least alter\nthe fact that where marital relations go awry the evil is largely in the\nconditions which govern those relations in our present social order.\n\nThe relaxing of marriage ties is no remedy; it is only a relief to\npersons of incompatible tempers. Both the advocates and the opponents of\ngreater facilities for divorce seem to argue their case out of all\nrelation to the existing social environment of marriage. The evils for\nwhich a remedy is sought in easier divorce are not to be found in the\nnature of the marriage relation but in the conventional and legal status\nof women.[34] While the social and economic sources of the trouble are\nleft untouched, no amount of Catholic emphasis upon the sacramental\ncharacter of marriage is going to stay the demand for the greater\ndissolubility of a tie which existing conditions do much to make\ndifficult and frequently intolerable. Even under the best conditions,\nthe mutual adjustments of the man and woman in married life are not\neasy; but when one party enters the relation in a position of more or\nless explicitly acknowledged dependence and inferiority, there are seeds\nof ineradicable trouble.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  This does not imply that the present writer does not recognise the\n  need of some extension of the grounds of divorce in Great Britain. It\n  simply means that he thinks that the problem cannot be rightly\n  approached until the economic independence of women has been\n  established.\n\nIt is not for a moment argued that the establishment of the economic\nindependence of woman is a cure for all the ills that afflict the\nfamily. But this is fundamental; and we shall simply be beating the air\nso long as we do not accept this principle. For it is the only method\nwhich holds a promise of restoring the life of the home. At the same\ntime, it is no less necessary that the woman being by reason of her\nmotherhood economically independent should not be regarded as the\neconomic handmaid of the state. If the endowment of motherhood is only a\nprovision for increasing the economic and military human material of the\ncommunity, then we are better without it. For the poison which vitiates\nour life will return to it at its most delicate and sensitive point. To\nregard the marriage relation simply as the means of supplying a constant\nstream of military and economic units for the state is to deny the\nspiritual nature of man at its very source, and to reimpose on ourselves\nthe deadly incubus of materialism. This is the danger which the Eugenics\nmovement threatens us with. To introduce the principle of selective\nbreeding into human relations may result in a community of persons,\nhealthy, vigorous and efficient for economic and military purposes; but\nwe are learning how little physical heredity has to do with the ultimate\npurpose of life. In so far as Eugenics will lead to greater precautions\nagainst the propagation of diseased and mentally and physically\ndegenerate persons, and quickens a greater vigilance and a more\ninsistent demand for sound minds and sound bodies in those about to give\nthemselves in marriage, it brings a necessary and valuable reinforcement\nto the influences that make for human welfare. But when it goes beyond\nthis point, it becomes a danger to the spiritual conception of life and\nsociety. What we must insist upon is that marriage shall be a\npartnership, deliberately entered into by two equal persons,\neconomically independent of each other, attracted to each other by that\nphysical and temperamental affinity which we call love; and that we\nshall import into the relationship no extraneous notions of\nstate-service or of race-preservation which may interfere with the\nfreedom and spontaneity of the relation thus established. The bearing of\nchildren may be a service to the nation; but no child is well-born who\nis not born simply of the joyful mutual selfgiving of man and woman.\n\nYet it may be held that the partnership is an affair so momentous that\nnone should be permitted to enter it so precipitately as the marriage\nlaws of the United States allow. Some degree of deliberation should be\ninsisted upon before legal recognition of the union is granted. The\ndemand for greater facilities for divorce is probably not unconnected\nwith the extreme facility with which persons can enter upon the marriage\nrelationship.\n\nBut the establishment of right relations between the sexes must begin\nbefore the period when men and women have reached the condition of\npersonal independence. It should be plain that the sense of\nsex-difference which emerges in adolescence should not be allowed to\ndevelop in the unregulated and capricious manner in which our false\nmodesty compels it to develop to-day. The processes of initiation into\nthe mysteries of sex should begin sufficiently early to avert so far as\npossible the danger of its being discoloured and perverted by the undue\nobtrusion of its sense-accompaniments. There is no real reason why the\nfrank comradeship of boys and girls should not be maintained through\nadolescence into youth, but the criminal negligence which we have shown\nconcerning the means by which sex-knowledge is communicated to growing\nchildren has succeeded in creating a gulf between men and women which\npersists more or less permanently and constitutes the most obstinate\ndifficulty in the way of perfect freedom of fellowship between men and\nwomen. It is no exaggeration to say that the attitude of most men to\nwomen is poisoned\u2014perhaps beyond perfect recovery at any time\u2014by the\nconditions under which as boys they received their first intimations of\nthe nature of the sex-relation. A good deal has already been done to\npave the way of change in this matter; and an increasing number of\nparents are assuming the responsibility of communicating this knowledge\nto their children. But there is still unfortunately a great mass of\nunhealthy prudery to be overcome before rational dealing with this\nproblem becomes anything like universal.\n\nThe problem of the fellowship of men and women, however, extends beyond\nthe institution of marriage. Now that the enfranchisement of women is\nopening up the question of their availability and qualification for\nnational legislatures, we are confronted with a very large possibility\nof change in the tone and temper of government. Much nonsense is talked\nabout the psychological differences between men and women; and of this\nnonsense, the emptiest is that which assumes that women are dominated by\nsentiment and emotion, while men are guided by reason. An unprejudiced\nobserver, watching deliberative gatherings of men over any space of time\nwould certainly arrive at the conclusion that the occasions on which\nthey acted upon purely rational grounds were rare and exceptional; and\nit has been the experience of the present writer that in deliberative\ngroups of men and women the women are on the whole more likely to\ndisplay a dispassionate rationality in arriving at their judgments than\nthe men. It is a region in which broad generalisations are bound to be\nunsound; and the progress of the higher education of women is\nundoubtedly obliterating any patent difference of mental operation\nbetween men and women. At the same time, there are certain differences\nwhich are embedded in the physical structure of sex and which may be\ntherefore permanent; but so far from disqualifying women from a share in\ngovernment, those very differences entitle them to it. Quite apart from\nthe fact that the problems of food and clothing in their incidence on\nthe home are of peculiar importance to women, and that the woman\u2019s point\nof view should always be represented in discussion of the large-scale\nproblems of production and distribution, the mind of woman brings a\ncheck and balance to the operations of the male mind which they very\nacutely need. There can, for instance, be no question that the male mind\ntends to an inordinate faith in force and coercive processes; and while\nit would hardly be correct to say that the female mind possesses an\nantithetic bias of a reasoned kind, it does normally display a certain\nhesitancy to apply the closure of compulsion which the too ready\n_real-politik_ of a purely male assembly is prone to adopt when it sets\nout to translate its emotions into enactments. The truth of the matter,\nin fine, is this\u2014that because humanity is bi-sexual, its affairs cannot\nbe reasonably and fruitfully determined save through the common counsels\nof men and women. We have already made a beginning in the admission of\nwomen to the councils of the community. A woman has sat in the Congress\nof the United States; women have long been at home in British municipal\nbodies, and their right to a place in Parliament has been acknowledged.\nIt is only a matter of time when the logic of the enfranchisement of\nwomen will reach its inevitable conclusion in their admission to all\npublic deliberative bodies on equal terms with men. They have a\ncontribution to bring to the corporate direction of affairs without\nwhich the nations can no longer do; and the fact that as a class they\nmay take some time to become habituated to the mechanics of legislation\nis an argument for hastening their complete admission to it.\n\nThere were those who in the \u201cmilitant\u201d stage of the \u201cVotes for Women\u201d\ncampaign foretold that the economic class-war would presently be\nsuperseded or complicated by a sex-war; and some women there were whose\nutterances undoubtedly pointed in that direction. For the time, however,\nthis danger has dropped over the horizon. The war has evoked a community\nof suffering in which men and women alike have shared too deeply, and in\nwhich their mutual need has been too overwhelming to make the notion of\na sex-war even thinkable to-day. But we should be rejoicing prematurely\nif we supposed that all possible sources of sex-antagonism have\ndisappeared. The political enfranchisement of women certainly removes\none source; but the new industrial complications caused by the entry of\nwomen into occupations which have hitherto been a male monopoly, and in\nwhich their employment has been fully justified by the character of\ntheir workmanship may, when the transition to peaceful life is being\nmade, breed grievances and troubles in which the line of cleavage will\nbe determined by the sex-factor. But if we assume the establishment of\nthe \u201cnational minimum,\u201d applicable to men and women alike, and therefore\nsecuring the economic independence of women, we shall have robbed this\nprospective danger of much of its substance. For the rest, there seems\nto be no reason why women should not be freely permitted to engage in\noccupations for which they are competent, on equal terms with men; and\nthe comradeship of men and women in the control and the operation of\nindustrial processes would do much to fix the now dominant sex-interest\nin its proper place in life. The primacy of the sex-interest in\ndetermining the relations of men and women works definitely toward the\nretention of women in a subordinate, parasitic and exploited position,\nand while this lasts, we shall still have with us the seeds of\nsex-antagonism. All this does not overlook the fact that there are kinds\nof work for which women are physically unsuited, and that there are\ntimes in the life of the married woman when she should be exempted from\nall manual work save of the lightest sort. But these problems are in\nessence present even in the working conditions of men. All men are not\nsuited for all classes of work; and there are few men whose work is not\noccasionally interrupted by sickness. What is needed in the case of\nwomen is simply a further application of those principles of selection\nand accommodation which already operate in every industry. Unless some\nsuch position as this is frankly accepted, we may be presently\nconfronted with a new militancy and a new sabotage at the hands of women\nwho have tasted the experience of economic independence and are\nunwilling to surrender it to a convention of inequality which they claim\ntheir own war-time performance has permanently discredited.\n\n\n                                   IV\n\n\nDifficult as the realisation of a perfect fellowship between men and\nwomen may be, it presents a problem comparatively easy of solution by\nthe side of that entailed in the division of a community by a\ncolour-line. In itself the colour-line is not insuperable; its\ndifficulty lies in its symbolical character as representing a difference\nand an inferiority of tradition and history. The chief difficulty in the\nUnited States arises out of the memory of the former slavery of the\nnegro population; and the consequent persistence of a prejudice against\naccording equal treatment to a class regarded as, if not sub-human, at\nleast permanently inferior in capacity. It is useless to press the\nassumption that a necessary physical aversion must always separate the\nwhite from the black, in the face of the existence of a vast number of\npalpably cross-bred persons in the community. This does not, of course,\nmean that mixed marriages should be encouraged or regarded as normal.\nThe problems raised by miscegenation are much too difficult to permit us\nto remove the colour-line by the off-hand method of race-fusion. The\nfusion of two races separated from one another not only by the memory of\ntwo centuries of slavery but by unnumbered centuries of widely different\nculture, would probably create more problems than it solved. The\ncolour-line would be superseded by a multiplicity of shade-lines; and\nconfusion would be worse confounded. It is probable that the level of\nthe more advanced race would be depressed more than that of the more\nbackward race would be raised. Houston Chamberlain is probably right (in\nspite of his capacity for being so frequently and so colossally wrong)\nin holding that the finest racial types are produced by the fusion of\ntwo peoples not too widely separated in physical and historical\ncharacter, followed by close inbreeding. The gulf between black and\nwhite in America and South Africa is far too deep, as yet at least, to\nmake the removal of the colour-line by fusion a subject of hopeful\ndiscussion.\n\nBut equally the solution is not to be found in segregation\u2014certainly so\nfar as these two countries are concerned. The admixture of the black and\nthe white elements in the population has gone much too far to make\nsegregation a practical proposition. It would, moreover, have the\ndistinct disadvantage of stereotyping two different types of cultural\ndevelopment within the same commonwealth and of consequently endangering\nits unity by setting up the possibility of rivalry and antagonism. In\nany two-race community the ideal must be to secure so far as may be\npossible a substantial identity of outlook and culture; and this is to\nbe done not by segregation, but by contact.\n\nBut it is just this \u201ccontact\u201d that is denied to the negro race both in\nAmerica and South Africa. The races are really segregated as effectually\nas though they lived in separate reservations; they live in quite\ndifferent cultural \u201cclimates.\u201d The negro though no longer a\nchattel-slave yet constitutes a servile class; the duties assigned to\nhim in the community are essentially of a menial kind. It is\ncharacteristic of his position in America that the higher ranks of\nmilitary command are closed to him; and while a woman has made her way\nto Congress, there is as yet no negro congressman; the idea is still\nbarely thinkable. Yet no community has thrived permanently which\npermitted a helot class to exist within itself; and the position of the\nnegro\u2014now that education is quickening his mind to the sense of\nclass-disinheritance and race-consciousness\u2014may become a grave menace to\nthe inner harmony of the Republic.\n\nThe logic of Lincoln\u2019s proclamation has yet to be worked out in the\nminds of white Americans. To abolish slavery is not indeed to make a\nblack man white; nor does it at once equip him for the responsibilities\nof freedom. But it does confer citizenship upon him; and the gift of\ncitizenship should be validated by two things; first, by a frank and\ngenerous recognition of equality of standing, and second, by a\nthorough-going policy of education. Perhaps the former was more than\ncould be justly expected. Just as the slave was ill-equipped for\nfreedom, so the white man could hardly rise at once to the plane of\nregarding the negro as his free and equal brother. But it is a fair\ncriticism of the public treatment of the negro that he has not been\nsupplied with the opportunity of rising to his white brother\u2019s plane of\nculture. There have been voluntary philanthropic efforts in this\ndirection, but this work should not have been left to the precarious\nchances of charity. Just because negro emancipation was a public act,\nthe full cultural education of the negro was a public responsibility.\n\nBy reason of this failure on the part of the white man, the negro has\nnot advanced to such a point as two generations of liberty would\nseemingly entitle us to expert. He has inevitably retained much of the\nmentality and many of the habits of his servitude; and these are\neffectual bars to that type of social contact which the negro\u2019s growth\nrequires. That there is no inherent impossibility in educating the negro\nup to the average plane of the Anglo-Saxon has been proved in a\nmultitude of instances; and people who are devoid of race-prejudice find\nno difficulty in establishing frank and fruitful fellowship with\neducated coloured persons.\n\nAmerica and Great Britain in her dominions and dependencies have to face\nthe logic of their democratic ideals by a sustained resolution to\nprovide the opportunity to their coloured fellow-citizens to reach their\nown plane of culture. As things are they deny their democratic\nprofessions by permitting their race prejudices to consign their\ncoloured fellow-citizens to a condition of permanent social inferiority.\nIf they wish to be democratic in fact and not merely in name, they will\nneed to be true to the implications of their democracy through\neverything, even through the physical repugnances which the personal\nhabits of backward races are apt to evoke. The colour problem was\ncreated for this generation by its forbears\u2014by those who sold and owned\nslaves and those who established colonies in distant countries. But\nthough the problem is not of our making, we cannot absolve ourselves\nfrom the moral responsibility which it lays upon us; and it is only by\nmeans of an inveterate good-will that we shall discharge this\nresponsibility. Such a good-will must rest upon the truth\u2014however\nunpalatable to our prejudices it may be\u2014that the black man whether in\nNew York or in Cape Town is equally with ourselves endowed with the\nhuman _differentia_ of personality, and that he is morally entitled to\nall the rights of life and light and liberty that we claim for\npersonality. With this truth must be accepted the task imposed upon us\nby our superior advantages (which like our responsibilities we owe to\nour fathers), to raise the more backward races with whom we live to a\nplane on which there can be free and enriching fellowship between them\nand ourselves. We cannot hopefully go on to make the world safe for a\nprinciple of common life which our present habits show that we do not\nbelieve in at home.\n\n\n                                   V\n\n\nHowever complete and well-organised the provision may be against\ndestitution in any society, it can never prevent the distress which\nensues upon the accidents of life, sickness and sorrow, loneliness and\nold age\u2014these we shall not wholly escape even in our earthly paradise.\nWe may indeed lessen the occasions of sickness and of premature death by\na wiser and more scientific ordering of the physical setting of life and\nof personal habit; but no ingenuity or skill can overcome the inevitable\nbrokenness of life in a world of time. But this very circumstance\nprovides fellowship with the opportunity to do its most perfect work.\n\nAnd real fellowship will be possible for the simple reason that\n\u201ccharity\u201d will be superfluous. In modern life, the material destitution\nof large numbers of people has necessitated the organisation of relief\non a large scale, both public and private; and while the charitable\nimpulse is intrinsically admirable, the conditions under which it has\ncome to be exercised have in effect widened the gulf between the rich\nand the poor. On the one hand the rich have contracted the habit of\ncondescending patronage; and the poor have fallen into a habit of\ncunning obsequiousness. In self-defence the rich have built up a\nmachinery of investigation and distribution which has had three\ndisastrous results: _first_, it has set up the monstrous and unfair test\nof deservingness,\u2014\u201cthe deserving poor\u201d is a phrase in which the\nwell-to-do have forever crystallised their pharisaism; _second_, it has\nset a premium upon the petty tactics of evasion and deceit among the\npoor, and upon a corresponding cunning and astuteness in those entrusted\nwith the business of investigation; and _third_, it has eliminated from\ncharity the one element which could make it tolerable and preserve the\ngrace which should properly go with it\u2014namely, friendly contact. For the\nmost part, the relief of destitution through charitable organisations,\nhas\u2014because it eliminates the direct personal touch between need and\nsupply\u2014produced and aggravated a deep and deplorable social schism.\n\nNor is the case any better with the public organisation of poor relief.\nThe English poor-law has been so completely discredited and is so near\ndissolution that it is hardly necessary to discuss it here. It is more\nimpersonal in its operations than a charity organisation society; but\nits most evil consequence is that it has so worked as to attach a stigma\nto honest poverty\u2014for the person who has received poor-relief is denied\nthe rights of citizenship. Old age has fortunately been provided for in\nGreat Britain in the only worthy way, by a grant of state-pensions,\nthough the actual amount of the pension is pitifully inadequate. Yet the\nfact of the provision indicates a distinct advance in the sense of\npublic justice. But we shall not make much more progress until we\nrealise that the pauper like the plutocrat is a social product; and that\nsuch destitution as prevails to-day is due less to personal perversity\nthan to a vicious social order. No one is so foolishly hopeful as to\nsuppose that even the most radical social change will eliminate the\nprodigal and the spendthrift and the sensualist. Nevertheless, it is no\nlonger open to question that a revolution in economic conditions would\ndo much to remove the auxiliary causes of pauperising excess.\n\nBut the chief evil which attends our method of dealing with poverty is\nthat it has tended to perpetuate a pauper class. Whether in the relief\nwork of religious and charitable societies, or in the administration of\npublic relief, we have been chiefly governed by the fact of an immediate\nneed. We have lived in the fond hope that if the present corner could be\nturned, something might transpire to save the recipient of relief from\nanother crisis; and not even the obvious fact that the crisis is chronic\nin the case of multitudes has shaken us out of our preoccupation with\nsymptoms into an investigation of causes. In one of the supplementary\nreports of the British Poor-Law Commission, it was stated that the\ninvestigation of the cases of applicants to whom \u201cout-door\u201d relief was\ndenied (the alternative being to go into the \u201chouse\u201d), showed that only\nin one instance where such persons had been helped by religious\norganisations was there any attempt to place the person concerned on an\nindependent economic footing. This is symptomatic of the ineptitude of\nour common thought about the poor. We appear to accept the fact of their\ndependence as chronic and incurable; and by the process of \u201cdoles\u201d we\naggravate this dependence and turn it into what we suppose it to be.\n\nThis same ineptitude has pursued society in its dealings with another\nclass\u2014the criminal. Criminologists do not nowadays assume the existence\nof a natural criminal class; but our way of treating criminals has\ncreated such a class. Both for the pauper and the criminal we require a\nnew diagnosis. Instead of treating the pauper as an incurable social\nparasite we should regard him as a personal inefficient; and rather than\nput a premium upon his inefficiency by a continual gratuitous relief of\nhis necessities, we should impose some discipline which may lead to\npersonal efficiency and an ordered habit of life. As for the criminal,\nhe is a social inefficient; and his treatment should include some\nprovision for his training in the sense and arts of social\nresponsibility. It is a practical recognition of this need that\nconstitutes the contribution which men like Messrs. Thomas Mott Osborne\nand Homer Lane are making to the solution of a difficult problem. That\nsome plan of temporary segregation is necessary in the treatment of the\ninefficient\u2014whether personal or social\u2014is not open to question; but the\npoorhouse and the prison, as we know them, only aggravate the evil which\nthey are intended to cure.\n\nOur increasing attention to the problem of the social misfit at an\nearlier stage\u2014through the new study and treatment of mentally deficient\nchildren\u2014will considerably reduce the proportions both of pauperism and\ncrime. We are a long way from Samuel Butler\u2019s vision of the time when\nthe liar will be sent to hospital and the sick person to jail;\nnevertheless, the point of Butler\u2019s _extravaganza_ is becoming\nrecognised in the double fact that a good deal of disease is due to\npreventable causes, the disregard of which is already treated as a legal\noffence; and that much of the delinquency that prevails originates in\npathological conditions rather than in moral depravity. Especially are\nwe on hopeful lines when we take the mentally deficient child and regard\nhim as the subject of medical rather than of legal treatment. And we\nshall go yet farther when we realise that though we cannot and dare not\neliminate the factor of personal responsibility, yet our social misfits\nare the products of our social disorder, and it is seen that while\njustice requires that a man shall pay the penalty of his sins, yet the\nsame justice requires that the society which produced the sinner shall\nfeel a corporate responsibility for his restoration. And restoration is\nindeed the very centre of our problem in dealing with the social misfit.\nFor our task with the pauper and the criminal is that of making each\ncapable of entering freely and vitally into the fellowship of free men.\n\nYet when we have dealt with the social misfit there will remain, life\nbeing what it is, a number of people in every community for whom the\nburden of life has proved too heavy or whose lives are clouded by\nsickness or loneliness or death. \u201cThe poor,\u201d said Jesus, \u201cye have always\nwith you.\u201d He did not mean that we need always have physically destitute\npeople with us; He knew better, as we know better. But the smoking flax\nand the bruised reed we shall ever have with us; and no society can\nafford to despise a ministry of comfort. Indeed, fellowship will lack\nits native grace if it fails to produce an unfailing stream of sympathy\nand consolation to the distressed. Here will be the test of the vitality\nof our fellowship. For our ideal of fellowship may become hardened in\norganisation; and personal spontaneity may be lost in a routine habit of\nlife. And to whatever else we may be able to give an organised and\nofficial form, it is at least sure that when the ministry of comfort and\nhelp loses the touch of personal directness and spontaneity, it is from\nhenceforth a dead and useless thing.\n\n\n                                  VII\n\n\nUp to this point we have considered the more general problems of\nfellowship in the community as a whole; we have still to consider some\nof the questions raised by the more particular associations which form\nthemselves within the community, and in which by far the largest measure\nof the community\u2019s vitality resides. F. W. Maitland, in an interesting\npassage, reviews the endless variety of social forms in which men group\nthemselves together. He speaks of \u201cchurches, and even the medi\u00e6val\nchurch, one and catholic, religious houses and mendicant orders,\nnonconforming bodies, a presbyterian system, universities, old and new,\nthe village community, which Germanists have revealed to us, the manor\nin its growth and decay, the township, the New England town, the\ncounties and hundreds, the chartered boroughs, the guild in all its\nmanifold varieties, the Inns of Court, the merchant adventurers, the\nmilitant \u201ccompanies\u201d of English _condottieri_ who, returning home, help\nto make the word \u201ccompany\u201d popular among us: the trading companies, the\ncompanies that became colonies, the companies that make war, the\nfriendly societies, the Trade Unions, the clubs, the group that meets at\nLloyd\u2019s Coffee House, the group that becomes the Stock Exchange, and so\non even to the one man company, the Standard Oil Trust, and the South\nAustralian statutes for communistic villages.\u201d The prevailing political\nphilosophy of our time has stated its problem almost wholly in terms of\nan abstract state over against an abstract individual; and one of the\nmost heartening signs of the invasion of political thought and practice\nby a more healthy humanism is the growing recognition of these\nmany-coloured nucleations of life. There are important and difficult\nquestions bearing upon their political and legal status, but these are\nonly to be answered by a frank acknowledgment that groupings of this\nkind come into being because they meet a real need and answer to certain\nfacts of life and human nature. No political philosophy is likely to\nstand the racket of historical experience which does not stand upon the\nassumption that these associations have a real and inherent right to\nform themselves, to exist, to thrive and to multiply; for it is in\ngroups that are voluntarily formed around a living interest that the\nmost significant and important part of our life is lived. To the more\ndirect political implications of this type of association we shall turn\nat a later point; here we are concerned only to emphasise the need and\nthe right of such bodies to live, and their importance for the\npreservation of the balance of life, and therefore, of stable social\nprogress. Their real importance may be seen from the circumstance that\nthe struggle for religious liberty in England, which has historically\nbeen the spring of civil and political liberty, was a struggle not for\nthe liberty of the individual but of the small voluntarily associated\ngroup.\n\nThese voluntarily associated groups will form themselves around any\ninterest of sufficient importance; and, as we have seen, they are of the\nmost various character and raise the most various questions concerning\ntheir relation to the commonwealth.[35] This is a subject still in the\nearlier stages of exploration and likely to be of increasing importance\nfor our political and social philosophies, especially as it comes to be\nrecognised that for the most part the groups which are here spoken of\nrepresent interests and needs more vital to human nature than the\naccidental aggregations represented by political states. It may,\nmoreover, be held that the multiplication of such groups within the\ncommonwealth, insomuch as they bear upon real interests of life, is much\nto be encouraged; and the commonwealth which knows what is good for its\npeople will impose no restrictions upon their power and readiness to\nform themselves into combinations of this kind. And indeed, however\nabsolute the authority of the state, it cannot prevent the formation of\nvoluntary associations. If it be not permitted to form these\nassociations openly, they will be formed secretly; and the secret\nsociety is the undoing of commonwealths.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  The commonest and the oldest type of freely associated group within\n  the commonwealth is of course the Church, and on this point the reader\n  may be referred to the present writer\u2019s book _The Church in the\n  Commonwealth_.\n\nAs a matter of fact, the state has always been apprehensive and\nsuspicious of combinations of any kind within its own bounds and has\nendeavoured either to repress them or to establish the principle that\nthey exist only on sufferance. But no attempts at repression when they\nare directed at associations that represent real human concerns have\nbeen permanently successful. The repeal in 1824 of the British Acts\nagainst combination, intended chiefly to frustrate industrial unions,\nwhether of employers or of workers, is typical of the fate of such\nlegislation. These Acts went against the actual facts of the human\nsituation and naturally proved disastrous. It is in this region of\nindustrial combinations that we have the best modern illustration of the\nspontaneity and inevitability of voluntary human association. In the\nGuild period it was broadly true that Capital and Labour being in the\nsame hands had interests which were identical; but when power-driven\nmachinery separated Capital from Labour and lodged them in different\nhands, and as the rift widened through the operation of _laissez-faire_,\nand the interests of Capital and Labour became antagonistic, it was\nnatural that the capitalists and the workers should severally combine in\ndefence of their interests. The state prayed a plague on both their\nhouses at that time, being equally afraid of both; later, the state\nbecame more complaisant to the powerful owning classes; and looked\naskance only at the workers\u2019 unions\u2014an attitude which led to a very\nmaterial strengthening of the latter. This schism of Capital and Labour\ndominates the present social situation, and it is at this time, even\nmore than the state, the gravest hindrance to the natural activities of\nsocial energy. Its disintegrating and antisocial effect is plain far\noutside the region where the immediate issue lies, and it is\nquestionable whether an organic social life is possible until the\nantagonism is overcome. Something has been done to mitigate the worst\nasperities of this unsatisfactory position by welfare work,\ncopartnership, profit-sharing; and still more will be done by the\nintroduction of measures of joint control of the conditions of industry.\nBut the fact still remains that this antithesis and separation of\ncapital and labour is artificial and unnatural, as it is also\nessentially undemocratic. For power goes with ownership under the\nconditions imposed by the current doctrine of property; and concessions\nand benefits which are granted as from the voluntary bounty of the\nemployer (however worldly wise they actually are in their intention)\ninvolve an assumption of patronage which the present temper of the\nworkers makes entirely unreal and obsolete. The danger of social\ndisruption lies in this quarter; and so long as the present tension\nremains, it tends to retard the free and varied expressions of\nfellowship in which a living society should abound. Society divided into\ntwo camps, with interests radically divergent, is condemned to a state\nof tension which is hostile to the free ferment of association natural\nto men; and this despite all well-meaning efforts to reconcile the\nconflicting interests by compromises which leave the framework of the\nschism untouched. So that we have come to this\u2014that it is not only the\ntraditional attitude of the state which is hostile to the free\nefflorescence of social groups but the actual condition of society under\nthe present industrial system. A state of war, even of suppressed war,\nmakes for a forced fellowship of partisans, and not for the free\nfellowship of partners. It is in the interests of the genuine\nsocialisation of life that it is demanded that this social schism of\ncapital and labour should be overcome; and there is but one way of\novercoming it, namely the logical democratic way of putting the capital\nand the power it wields in the hands of those who labour. Towards this\ngoal the first step has been taken in the movement toward democratic\ncontrol in industry; and from this it is inevitable that the worker\nshould proceed to demand control not only of production, but, as Mr.\nCole says, also of the product, its sale and exchange; and, finally of\ninvestments. The free variegated expression and embodiment of the\nnatural society-forming instincts of mankind are not possible in a\ncommunity where one class is in a position to impose its will upon\nanother. A state of conflict tends inevitably to a kind of flattening\nregimentation within the conflicting bodies; and regimentation whether\ndeliberate or unconscious is an obstruction to the free flow of life.\nThere is all the difference in the world between an organised society\nand a society that is essentially organic. An organised society makes\nfor uniformity; an organic society will express itself in an endless\nnumber and variety of social forms.\n\nIf the state only knew it, its security lies in the encouragement of\nvoluntary associations of all types; and even if it finds it difficult\nto rise to the plane of encouragement, it should at least achieve an\nattitude of toleration. For it is the only safeguard against the\ninevitable conflict of loyalties which is bound to arise when the state\nattempts to legislate for individuals in matters which touch the\nquestion of moral obligation. Indeed, during the war, we have seen the\nstate in a somewhat lame and half-hearted way endeavouring to escape\nsome of the consequences of its own legislation by having recourse to a\nrecognition of the small group. It was bound by the sheer nature of the\nfalls to acknowledge the existence of conscientious objection to war;\nand it proposed to acknowledge the genuineness of an individual\nconscientious objection to war if the person in question was a member of\na religious society, the doctrines of which contained a testimony\nagainst war. It was assumed that if a man belonged to the Society of\nFriends, it constituted respectable evidence that his objection to\nparticipation in war was sincere. In this particular case, the test\nproved hopelessly inadequate; but it does at least indicate the\ncondition under which the unity of the state can best be preserved. It\nis plainly impossible for the state to avoid conflict with the\nindividual conscience so long as it lacks the means of determining\nwhether a conscientious scruple is merely a personal idiosyncrasy or\narises from a reasoned and socially authenticated view of life. By\nrecognising the right of the members of a small group which has\ndemonstrated its social worth to live their life out in their own way,\nit saves itself from a dangerous conflict with the individual\nconscience; while, on the other hand, as the individual conscience is\nsafe-guarded from an anarchic eccentricity by the discipline of a freely\nchosen social environment, the state has the assurance that it is\ndealing with a genuine manifestation of moral life which must at all\ncosts be respected. The small voluntary associated group is the saving\nmiddle term between the state and the individual. It is not likely, of\ncourse, that it will prove efficacious without exception in solving the\nproblems involved in the relations of the individual and the state; but\nit would do much to mitigate the dangerous possibilities of the present\npractice.[36]\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  This chapter pretends to do no more than discuss at large those\n  questions of fellowship which directly abut upon the public affairs of\n  democracies. The promotion of fellowship in general opens up a large\n  range of subjects which would not fall easily within the scope of this\n  book.\n\n  No discussion of the practice of fellowship can, for instance, be\n  complete which does not take account of the actual and potential\n  social ministry of play and recreation. But this matter involves\n  questions with which the present writer is without competency to deal.\n  It would require an extended treatment of the social reactions of\n  sport, amateur and professional, the revival of folk-dancing and the\n  maypole, the multiplication of play-centres for children and of open\n  spaces; of the drama and the public provision of music\u2014and of other\n  matters. The subject is large and important enough for systematic\n  discussion in a separate volume by someone capable of handling it.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter VII.\n                    THE ORGANISATION OF GOVERNMENT.\n\n    \u201cThe people of England were then, as they are now, called upon to\n    make Government strong. They thought it a great deal better to make\n    it wise and honest.\u201d\u2014BURKE.\n\n    \u201cWe may need and we may be moving towards a new conception of the\n    state, and more especially a new conception of sovereignty.... We\n    may have to regard every state, not only the federal state proper,\n    but also the state which professes to be unitary, as in its nature\n    federal. We may have to recognise that sovereignty is not single and\n    indivisible, but multiple and multicellular.\u201d\u2014ERNEST BARKER.\n\n    \u201cWe find the true man only through group organisation. The\n    potentialities of the individual remain potentialities until they\n    are released by group life. Man discovers his true nature, gains his\n    true freedom only through the group. Group organisation must be the\n    new method of politics, because the modes by which the individual\n    can be brought forth and made effective are the modes of practical\n    politics.\u201d\u2014MARY P. FOLLETT.\n\nTHE war has given the _coup de grace_ to the Sovereign State. It was on\nits last legs before the war. It is certain that Mr. Combes\u2019 affirmation\nof state absolutism during the debates on the disestablishment of the\nCatholic Church in France, was the last serious stand of this doctrine\nin democratic communities. In England the doctrine was never securely\nrooted; certainly it has not gained an unquestioned ascendency over\npolitical thought for any considerable period of time; and the exploit\nof Austinian legalism which (in the Scottish Churches\u2019 case) denied to a\nchurch the right to govern itself had virtually to be annulled by a\nspecial Act of Parliament. During the war the claim of the State upon\nthe individual has naturally attained a point which in normal times\nwould have been unthinkable; but this was confessedly the result of an\nemergency and not a rule for ordinary conditions of life. The German\nperformance during the war has revealed the logic of state-absolutism in\nfar too vivid a fashion for any of the somewhat turgid exaltation of the\nstate by academic people in the days previous to the war to survive on\nany terms. To rebut the doctrine of state-absolutism at this time would\nbe merely to flog a dead horse.\n\nBut long before the war the absolutist theory was being undermined. In\nthe region of law and political theory the criticism of F. W. Maitland,\nNevill Figgis, Duguit, and others had raised a very definite challenge\nto the doctrine of state-omnicompetency. But of much greater influence\nin the actual business of modifying the current conception of the state\nwas the growing tendency to form independent foci of authority within\nthe commonwealth. One obvious case of the kind is the institution of the\nBank Clearing House which represents the last stage in the process by\nwhich the business of exchange has passed from the state into the hands\nof an independent body which exercises in its own sphere an authority\nwhich is hardly to be resisted; and the present movement for the\namalgamation of large banking concerns makes it not impossible that\nshould the banking interest come into collision with the State, there\nwould be a very exciting tug-of-war. The medical profession took up an\nattitude of organised opposition to the State in the matter of the\nBritish Health Insurance Act; and other professional associations are\nto-day so highly organised that in the event of a collision with the\nState, it is at least doubtful how the issue would be decided. In the\ncase of the Taff Vale decision which rendered a Trade Union liable to\nprosecution for illegal action by its members, so threatening a protest\nensued that the legal decision had virtually to be reversed by special\nlegislation; and the growing solidarity of organised labour again\ncreates a problem of state authority which is not easily soluble, and\nwhich (it is not inconceivable) may at last have to be solved by a trial\nof strength.[37] It is no longer possible to assume that the philosophy\nof government can be stated in terms of the state and the individual; it\nwill have to take increasing account of the relation of the state to the\npowerful voluntary organisations of citizens within the\nstate\u2014organisations which, because they are voluntary, may exercise a\nmore powerful influence upon their members than the state can possibly\ndo. On the economic side this tendency toward the breaking up and the\ndistribution of centralised authority among functional and professional\ngroups, takes the form of Guild Socialism; and, while Syndicalism has\nnot yet succeeded in gaining a wide footing in Europe, its challenge to\nthe state has added a good deal to the minimising influences already\nafoot. It is worth while observing that these independent organisations\nare already so powerful that the British Government found it advisable\nto administer its National Insurance Act through Labour Unions and\nFriendly Societies.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Since these words were written, they have received very clear\n  confirmation in the recent activities of the \u201cTriple Alliance.\u201d\n\nBut it is not the growth of powerful organisations _within_ the\nCommonwealth alone that is making for the disintegration of\nstate-sovereignty. We are living in a period when great international\nbodies are coming into being, and while most of these are at present of\na cultural and professional type, it is evident that one at least is of\na character which involves a very profound challenge to the sovereignty\nof the national state. The Socialist International has not been\ndestroyed by the war; it has only been interrupted; and if the signs are\nnot wholly misleading, we may look for a steady and wide extension of\nthe international proletarian movement. In 1914 it proved too immature\nto resist the pressure of nationalism, but it is likely that in the\nfuture it will increasingly arm itself against a like collapse. As yet\nit is only in the case of the Socialist International that there is a\ndirect challenge to the national state; but it would require\nconsiderable hardihood to deny the possibility that other international\nprofessional and functional associations may find themselves at variance\nwith the constituted authorities of national states. For instance, the\nproblem of hygiene is becoming more and more an international affair;\nand it is no unthinkable thing that a medical international may find\nitself at odds with the state authorities just as the British Medical\nAssociation found itself in conflict with its own national Government.\nOne has only to add in this connection that the project of a League of\nNations will require an abdication of the claim to absolute sovereignty\non the part of the states constituting it.[38]\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  This cession of sovereignty may be hidden by a formal _camouflage_;\n  but there can be no real League of Nations without it.\n\nSo that both from within and without, the march of events is\ndisintegrating the dogma of state-sovereignty. The traditional political\nacceptances are rapidly becoming obsolete. In the main this would appear\nto be due to the new situation created by the swift development of the\nmeans of communication during the last century. The territorial factor\nin the delimitation of states and in their own internal economy, has\nceased to have the importance it possessed in days when distance set\nsharp limits to the intercourse of men. Those days are now past; and\nnational frontiers and county boundaries are being gradually effaced by\nsteam, and the sea has been bridged by the electric current and the\naeroplane.\n\n\n                                   II\n\n\nThe problem created in this way is not in its essence a new one. Since\nthe dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, the conflict between the\nnational state and the church\u2014whether conceived as an independent\nassociation within the commonwealth or as an international society\u2014has\nprovided some of the most significant passages of political history. The\nstruggle for religious freedom in England (which in the event proved the\nspring of other liberties) was essentially a struggle to secure the\nright of voluntary religious associations to determine their own\nreligious life and practices; and while the legal decision in the\nScottish Churches\u2019 case was a revival of the Austinian doctrine of\nstate-sovereignty, and an assertion on the part of the state of its own\nright to sit in judgment upon the religious proceedings of a church, the\nensuing situation proved so impossible (as has already been pointed out)\nthat the legal decision had to be annulled by a special piece of\nlegislation. Since that decision most of the \u201cfree\u201d churches in England\nhave taken steps to safeguard themselves against similar intrusions on\nthe part of the state. In the present situation, however, such security\ncannot be absolute since the state still has something to say to the\nlegal instruments under which the churches hold their temporalities. But\nthe entire episode shows how clear is the British sense that the\nomnicompetency of the state does not extend into the sphere of religious\nlife and practice; and the \u201cLife and Liberty\u201d movement in the\nEstablished Church of England is an indication that the control of the\nstate even over a state church is not beyond challenge.\n\nThe success with which the independent religious association has\nestablished its right to live in the face of the state is probably due\nto the circumstance that the region in which it claimed freedom was\nstrictly defined; and it may be argued that the state has been on the\nwhole more successful in resisting the claims of the church as an\ninternational society because those claims were allowed to enter regions\nin which the church\u2019s competency could be reasonably denied. The case of\nLamennais\u2019 illustrates the point. Lamennais began life as a fervent\nmonarchist and Catholic. He held strongly to the doctrine of the \u201ctwo\nsocieties,\u201d the temporal and the spiritual of which the King and the\nPope respectively were the heads.[39] These two societies were distinct\nand within their own sphere, independent of each other. But when the\nmonarchy encroached upon the freedom of the spiritual society, Lamennais\nbroke with it, and when later the papacy insisted upon a withdrawal of\nhis opinion that it had no rights outside the spiritual sphere, he broke\nwith the papacy also. He acknowledged the existence of a borderland in\nwhich the interests of both were commingled\u2014\u201cthat undiscovered country,\u201d\nas Lord Acton has put it, \u201cwhere church and state are parted\u201d; but the\nbroad configurations of the frontier were plain enough. For the most\npart the relations of church and state as institutional authorities have\nconsisted of assaults and intrigues and forays in this \u201cno man\u2019s land\u201d;\nand it has not been historically to the advantage of either. And the\nwhole history of this conflict in France and out of it points to the\nmoral that without some clear definition of function, the relation of\nthe state to other associations within and without itself must be one of\ncontinual conflict\u2014that is to say, of course, so long as the state and\nthe other associations speak in terms of right and authority. Granted a\nmeasure of good-will, the task of delimiting frontiers should not be\ninsuperable; but if a church or a labour union insists on its rights\nwhile the state insists upon its authority, the natural result will be\nconfusion.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  \u201cToute declaration qui supposerait de mon part, meme implicitement,\n  l\u2019abandon de la doctrine traditionelle de deux societ\u00e9s distinctes,\n  independante chacune dans son ordre, serait non pas un acte de vertu,\n  mais un acte coupable. La conscience ne le permet pas\u2014.\u201d This was\n  Lamennais\u2019 reply to a papal demand for retractation in 1833. See\n  Boutard, _Lamennais_ II., 387.\n\n\n                                  III\n\n\nAt the same time that these independent nucleations of authority are\nincreasingly afoot within the body politic, we observe in recent times a\nseemingly opposite tendency to impute competency to the state in regions\nwhere hitherto its writ was not supposed to run. To a purist political\nphilosophy, the function of the state is broadly twofold\u2014the\npreservation of domestic order and the safeguarding of national\ninterests with reference to other nations. But it has latterly more and\nmore stretched out its tabernacle to cover other matters; even going so\nfar as to assume that a positive and comprehensive culture of national\nlife came legitimately within its domain. That this should be so in a\ndynastic state like the German is easily understood; for the security\nand pretensions of the dynasty are dependent upon an intense development\nof human and material resources for military defence and offence. But\neven where such particularist designs have not been so obtrusively\npresent, the state has tended more and more to absorb into itself the\ncontrol and organisation of national life in all its important phases.\nIt has, for instance, taken upon its shoulders almost the entire burden\nof public education; it has conspicuously concentrated its thought and\nwisdom upon measures designed to increase the material prosperity of the\nnation\u2014though in point of fact this has worked out chiefly as the\nprosperity of a few favourably situated persons. The care of the\ndestitute, old age pensions, health and unemployment insurance have been\nincluded within its competency; and its apparently insatiable absorbent\nproclivity is drawing into its capacious hands the control and operation\nof the means of communication, the postal service, the railways,\ntelegraph and telephones. Plainly this extension of its office has been\naccompanied by a large and indefinite increment of authority.\n\nFor this movement, two circumstances appear to be accountable. Of these\nthe first is the growth of an ill-defined and only partially understood\nsense of collective responsibility for the well-being of the social\nwhole. Old Age Pensions, for instance, appear to constitute the proper\nalternative to the precarious charity or the degrading \u201cpoor relief\u201d to\nwhich a less self-respecting social past committed the industrial\nveteran. The means of communication similarly appear to a reasonably\neducated community to be a public service rather than a gold-mine for\nprivate individuals or concerns. The second circumstance is the prestige\nwhich accrued to the state from the reaction of the late nineteenth and\nearly twentieth centuries from the bankrupt individualism of the\npreceding generations. In their recoil from the anarchy of _laissez\nfaire_ and industrial competition men sought sanctuary in the state; and\nin the event the state gained a repute for competency which led to a\nfacile transference to it of all those interests that appear to bear\nmaterially upon the life of the community as a whole. But without\nprejudice to the question of public ownership, it may be observed that\nwhile the impulse which led to this regard for the state was natural and\nadmirable, it had the effect of concentrating in the state a volume of\npower which was entirely ominous to the liberties of the individual.\nIndeed, it may be said without much hesitation that the logic of\nstate-absolutism was revealed by the Germans only in time to save their\nneighbours from the like tragedy of incontinent subjection to the state.\nAnd the sense of personal responsibility was in danger of atrophy under\nthe pleasing and soporific influence of the popular idea that the state\nwas a sort of fairy god-mother who could be trusted to step in and make\ngood individual derelictions and delinquencies\u2014which frame of mind\naccorded well with the related drift towards unquestioning submission to\nthe state.\n\n\n                                   IV\n\n\nIn democratic communities the sovereignty of the state is a residuum\nleft over from the period of dynastic government; and though the divine\nright of kings is obsolete, we have not yet out-grown the derivative\ndogma of the divine right of governments. There still gathers around the\nstate an odour of sanctity; and in minds that have a turn for\nabstraction it is apt to take shape as a sacrosanct objective reality.\nBut soon or late the democratic peoples will have to look upon the state\nwith a cold and business-like realism if they are to be delivered from\nthe dangers that lurk in all quasi-religious and sentimental abasement\nto conventional idols. It is just this vague political devoutness that\nmakes it easy for the common people to be stampeded into invidious\ncommercial and military enterprises by statesmen schooled in a tradition\neither frankly dynastic or still deriving its main presuppositions from\nthe dynastic period. There is no security for democracy except in a\npersistent posture of criticism towards its institutions; and there is\nno immediate hope of a sane restoration of our somewhat shattered\nfortunes except as we strip the halo away from the state and discuss it\ndispassionately in terms of its functions.\n\nIts police responsibilities remain with it as a matter of course, so\nlong as human nature needs policing; and it must provisionally remain\nthe organ of the community in its intercourse across its frontiers. With\nthis latter we are not for the moment concerned; what falls to be\nconsidered is the problem of the state\u2019s function in respect of, first,\nthe present tendency to form extraneous and independent (and on occasion\nconceivably hostile and intractable) centres of authority, and second,\nthe recent process of investing the state with a sort of proprietorship\nand pastorate at large. Summarily it may be said that the office of the\nstate in respect of these two developments is that it should be on the\none hand the clearing house of the increasing functional and\nprofessional associations among which its ancient sovereignty is being\ndistributed, and on the other, the trustee of the public in the matter\nof producing and distributing the goods that are essential to life. The\nstate of the case and the course of events indicate a doctrine of public\nownership with democratic functional control, with the necessary\nmachinery for the due co-ordination of the centres of control.\n\nIt seems a fairly safe risk to say that the movement toward the public\nownership of a certain range of utilities will suffer no abatement with\nthe passing of time. That the means of communication should be public\nproperty should be as axiomatic as that a man\u2019s nervous system should\nbelong to himself; and no serious question can be raised as to the\ncertainty of ultimate common proprietorship in this region. With respect\nto the means of production the case is less clear; but it is a fair\nassumption, that if a reasonable security of the maintenance of life and\nhealth is to be achieved, there must be an increasing public ownership\nof the sources of raw material and of the means of production so far as\nthe essential commodities are concerned. That there is a range of\nindustrial production beyond this limit which is quite legitimate but\nwhich is nevertheless not a matter of universal concern is obvious; and\nit seems very questionable whether it is the business of the state to do\nmore than to secure that the conditions under which these industries are\nconducted are of a piece with those obtaining in the primary industries.\nObjects of differential and selective interest do not appear to enter\ninto the province of the state; it has to do only with those for which\nthe demand is universal because they correspond to a general need. It is\na question (as has been previously suggested) whether in this region of\nproduction it should not be the general rule that every member of the\ncommunity should share; in which case there would be ample time and\noccasion for the production of the secondary and more selective goods\nfor life. There is nothing in this argument which should be construed\ninto a suggestion that the things called in this connection secondary\nare unimportant. On the contrary they are very important; and with the\ncultural development of society their importance is likely to grow. The\nproduction of books and objects of \u00e6sthetic interest is likely to be\nstimulated very materially by any advance in the right sort of\neducation. But (with the exception of a very narrow margin) these are\nprobably things which are not suitably and fruitfully produced except as\nthey are free from central regulation.\n\nWithin the limits so indicated, therefore, the trend of affairs is\nrightly in the direction of public ownership\u2014in which case we shall\nrequire an organ in which this ownership shall be vested. For this\npurpose the state is already to hand, and is indeed, already assuming\nthe office. Its first domestic office will consequently be that of a\npublic trustee. But this raises the question whether the trustee is to\nbe manager as well.\n\nIt is of course plain that the trust would be a pure fiction if some\nmeasure of control in the disposition of the property were not implied\nin it. Certainly the last word in such matters should belong to the\nstate. This, however, appears to bring us back to that very doctrine of\nsovereignty from which, on our premises, it is our business to escape;\nand, indeed, if we have no different sort of state organisation in mind\nfrom that now current we should be starting out on a new cycle of\nauthoritarianism, were we to vest in the state so much authority. But\nalready the specifications of a new type of state-structure are being\nindicated by the course of events.\n\n\n                                   V\n\n\nIt is of some significance at this point to observe that of the\nfunctional associations within the commonwealth to which reference has\nbeen made, the most powerful are those which are concerned with the\nproduction of the primary commodities, and the means of their\ndistribution. This is no doubt chiefly due to the fact that these\nassociations represent the most numerous sections of the community. Coal\nminers, engineers, transport workers, clothing makers\u2014it is among these\nclasses that the movement toward combination has been most effectual.\nOne notable exception\u2014namely, agricultural workers\u2014is to be observed\nhere, the significance of which exception will come up for discussion\npresently. It does not, however, affect the general run of the present\nargument. The constitution and activity of the labour unions are\nsufficiently well known to require no exposition here\u2014the main point to\nbe emphasised being that here within the commonwealth are large, growing\nand powerful groups formed around a particular interest; and that this\ninterest is deemed to be vital is evident from the steady growth of the\ngroups. But we may further infer that the existence of these groups is\ndue chiefly to the fact that the particular interest which concerns them\nwas not effectually regarded in the councils of the commonwealth at\nlarge. The interests of the workers were presumably neglected to such a\ndegree that the class concerned deemed it necessary to organise itself\nin order to safeguard and to enforce these interests. Indeed on the\nworkers\u2019 showing the case was even worse. They argued that not only were\ntheir peculiar interests neglected by the existing powers, but that\nthese powers were weighted in favour of those against whom more\nspecifically the worker had to defend his interests. The formation and\ngrowth of the Non-partisan League in America is a recent instance of a\nclass nucleation under the pressure of circumstances largely parallel to\nthose here outlined.\n\nThe interests here discussed are of an economic kind, but they are vital\nand essential. It is to be observed, however, that these particular\nassociations are not confined either to the worker or to interests\npurely economic. Reference has already been made to the Bank Clearing\nHouse. This is an instance of the formation of a powerful group to\npromote the common interests of its members, though in this case its\nformation was less due to the neglect of those interests by the state\nthan to the fact that the interests concerned have become so extensive\nin range and so complex in character that the state was palpably\nincompetent to handle them profitably. In certain cases where the state\nhas assumed liabilities of this kind (as in railway control) experience\nhas not in the long run endorsed the competency of the state for the\njob. That, however, is less to the point than that we should observe the\ntendency to form voluntary associations for the protection and promotion\nof presumably necessary interests, and in some cases assuming (as in the\ncase of the Bank Clearing House) a kind of police authority within its\nown field. Besides these economic and financial associations, there are\nalso large and powerful professional associations which exist likewise\nto promote certain special interests. The British Medical Association\naffords an instance of such association; and here again we have an\nassociation which in the exercise of its office also assumes a function\nof discipline. Just as the Bank Clearing House can put a recalcitrant\nbank out of business, so the British Medical Association can \u201cunfrock\u201d a\ndoctor who has offended against the professional code. It is true that\nthe excommunicated culprit may in either case appeal to the civil courts\nfor redress; but the rarity of such appeals shows how nearly complete is\nthe authority exercised by these professional associations within their\nown province. With certain modifications the same general rule obtains\nin Teachers\u2019 Unions, the Bar, the Co-operative Societies, Churches and\nother voluntary associations of persons, that gather around the nucleus\nof a special interest. The case is not so plain in regard to societies\nof a specially cultural character which do not so directly abut upon the\ngeneral conduct of life, though the place of the Universities, Academies\nof Art, Author\u2019s Associations and the like, in the total scheme of\nsocial life, makes it impossible to exclude them from consideration in\nany discussion which looks to the integration of all the legitimate\ninterests of life in an organic full-growing social whole.\n\nSuch integration must, from the nature of the case, be a long and\ntedious process; and the difficulties involved in its extension to such\ndistant and shadowy regions as Art and Authorship may be left for\nsolution until they become more imminent. It is in any case doubtful\nwhether the interests involved in these and similar cases are such as\nwould be served by any formal connection with the machinery of\ngovernment, except as regards certain narrow legal points (_e.g._\ncopyright). This is also true of the Churches whose sole point of\ncontact with the State is in the matter of their temporalities.\nFortunately for the moment the task need not take account of these\nremoter complexities; and it will be a matter for legitimate argument\nhow far associations of a cultural kind are to enter into the\norganisation of government, when those associations which are already\nabutting on the province of the state and shearing it of some of its\npowers have been successfully co-ordinated in a scheme of political\nmanagement.\n\n\n                                   VI\n\n\nAt this point it is important to bear in mind two things. First of all,\nthe real interests which go to make up the sum of our life are precisely\nthose which lead us to form ourselves into associations independent of\nthe state. Indeed, the particular interest which binds a given\nindividual to the state is generally fortuitous in its origin and\nlargely imaginary in character. A man chances to be born into a certain\ngeographical area, and in the great majority of cases that circumstance\nfixes his state affiliation for his entire life. An emigrant may\ntransfer his affiliation to another state; but his case is exceptional.\nMoreover, the nature of the interests which bind him to the state is of\na dubiously sentimental and imaginary order. This is not the place to\ndiscuss the significance of that temper of attachment to a particular\npolitical unity which is called patriotism; but it would appear to have\ncomparatively little to do with any essential purpose of life. This must\nnot be taken to mean that patriotism is to be decried as an evil or a\nfutile thing. On the contrary, in so far as it represents a feeling of\nloyalty to a social group, it is admirable and of great value. Its value\nis, however, compromised by the invidious and divisive colour which it\nhabitually appears to wear; and its historical uses\u2014which chiefly\nconsist in its exploitation by astute statesmen\u2014constitute a record\nwhich is hardly flattering to human intelligence. In the main it plays\ncomparatively little part in the sum total of the ordinary man\u2019s life;\nand indeed it is hardly ever heard of in normal times until it is played\nup by politicians who want a national backing for a selfish enterprise\nat the expense of some other community. Its chief significance seems to\nbe that it provides a reserve of sentimental devotion which may be drawn\nupon without limit in the cause of national prestige or national\ndefence. Outside war-time, the state appears to touch the ordinary man\u2019s\nlife directly only when it requires him to pay the expenses of its\nupkeep or when he provokes the attention of the police. But on the other\nhand, when a man joins a Trade Union or a religious society it is\nbecause the new association bears some sort of vital and immediate\nrelation to his life. The most authentic interests of life are those\nwhich move men to join together voluntarily for their defence and\npromotion; and for the purpose of social development, the associations\nthat grow in this fashion are at least of no less importance to the\ncommon run of men than the state. It is no longer tolerable, therefore,\nthat in the general management of the affairs of a community these\nassociations should be virtually ignored in deference to a doctrine\nwhich presupposes that the state and the individual are the sole terms\nof political theory and practice, and that such associations exist\nwithin the commonwealth only on sufferance of the state.\n\nSecond, it has some bearing upon our present argument that these\nassociations may conceivably come at any time into conflict with the\ninterests of the social whole. A trade union may, for instance, make\nclaims which are incongruous with the well-being of the general public;\nchurches have been known to claim advantages which are inconsistent with\nthe freedom and welfare of other religious societies. With the\nmultiplication of societies within the commonwealth, and especially in\nview of the prospective great increase of strength in the case of trade\nunions, it is entirely essential that such bodies should be required\ndirectly to participate in the responsibility of promoting the general\nsocial good. They should\u2014in their character of associations charging\nthemselves with certain vital though particular interests\u2014be introduced\ninto the official management of public affairs. So long as they live\nmore or less isolated and unco-ordinated lives they remain in danger of\nbecoming antisocial in effect; and the only remedy is to provide for\nthem a clearing-house in the conduct of which they are directly\nimplicated; and once more, the state is already to hand and its\nmachinery should be so ordered as to enable it to discharge this office.\n\nTheoretically our movement is away from the \u201camoeba\u201d conception of the\nnational state, which regards it as an independent unicellular affair\nwith the central state organisation as its nucleus, to a conception of\nit as multicellular, and finding a practical unity in the contribution\nof all its cells to the activity of a common brain. This may be bad\nbiology but that is no argument against its political soundness.\n\nA difficult question arises when we come to consider what associations\nare entitled to this treatment; and it is plain that no association\nwhich cannot prove a genuine social worth has a claim for recognition.\nSome associations are powerful enough to claim and to receive\nrecognition without formal scrutiny of their credentials; but their\npower is itself a presumptive proof that they correspond to a real\nsocial need; and in the early stages of state-reconstruction, it will be\nnaturally such associations as can validate their claims by the volume\nof authority with which they make them that will enter into the\narrangement. For the rest, we shall have to take the risk of being able\nto cross the bridges when we come to them.\n\n\n                                  VII\n\n\nDiscontent with the existing method of assembling the machinery of\ngovernment has been growing rapidly in recent years. The progress of the\nproportional representation movement is the measure of this discontent;\nand it is difficult to conceive any valid objection to the scheme on the\npart of those who desire to give to the personnel of the governing body\na more genuinely representative character than it possesses at present.\nAt the same time, the transferable vote does not and from the nature of\nthe case cannot secure a completely representative government\u2014at any\nrate while we continue to elect parliamentary representatives on a\nterritorial basis.\n\nWe shall no doubt continue to elect representatives on a territorial\nbasis, for it would appear to be the only effectual method of\nrepresenting the chief interests which all individuals in the\ncommonwealth have in common, namely their interests as consumers (or\nenjoyers). But the territorial unit is more or less arbitrary in\ndefinition, and it does not coincide with the other interests that make\nup the business of life. And these other interests have assumed a\ncommanding importance in the conduct of the business of life in recent\ntimes. Reference was made in a previous paragraph to the fact that the\none great industry which was not adequately organised was agriculture.\nThe reason for this circumstance is to be found in the greater\ndifficulty which the farmers and the farm workers have had in getting\ntogether. The other great industries are located in urban areas where\nfacilities of communication and meeting are comparatively easy. The\nresult of facilitating communication among the farmers is already\nevident. The Non-partisan League was brought to birth by the Ford car\nand the rural telephone. It is true that the farm-workers still lack the\nopportunity of easy assembly; but what has happened in the case of the\nfarmers has the peculiar interest of being a graphic and simple object\nlesson in the processes which have transformed modern life. Our present\npolitical methods and acceptances date back to the period before the\nrailroad; and not only in politics, but in ethics and religion, we have\nyet to take on the task of revising our traditional concepts in the\nlight of the vast transformation wrought by the swift advance in methods\nof communication. The main result is that there are very few men who do\nnot belong to professional and trade organisations which stretch out\nbeyond their county boundaries, and there is a growing number to whom\nthese ultra-territorial associations are more vital and significant than\nthe local association of citizens in which the accident of their habitat\nplaces them. The new fact for the problem of government consists in the\nactual existence and multiplication of these professional and vocational\nconstituencies; and it is evident that that representative government is\nunworthy the name which does not represent these large embodiments of\nliving opinion and interest.\n\nIf for the moment then, we consider the economic aspects of the life of\nthe community alone, it is evident that two main sources of\nrepresentation have to be provided for\u2014the consumer and the producer;\nand every man should have a vote in each capacity. The defect of the\nSoviet organisation in Russia is that, as it is at present constituted,\nit appears to provide the consumer with no direct representation. The\nRussian Soviet is a council of workers. But it is evident that the\nprovision supply, carriage and distribution of commodities to a village\nis the concern of the whole village independently of the share which the\nvillagers may have in the actual production of these commodities. So\nthat the consumer _qua_ consumer must be represented. The physician and\nthe teacher[40] may not be producers in a strict and direct sense; but\nthey are directly interested in the problem of consumption and are\ninterested in it in the same way as the village blacksmith and the\nshoemaker. Moreover, there are problems of sanitation and road-keeping\nin which they are all also equally concerned. The village and the city\nward are therefore proper units of representation. But they still remain\nonly one type of unit. The agricultural labourers who live in the\nvillage may be members of a labour union which charges itself with the\noversight of the conditions of the agricultural labourer\u2019s work. The\nphysician will also be a member of an association which is concerned\nwith the special interests of his profession. Here then we have another\ntype of unit. For our present purpose we are concerned with these units\nonly as they are industrial and productive.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  Of course there may be physicians\u2019 and teachers\u2019 soviets; but they\n  will operate provincially rather than parochially, while the village\n  soviet would appear usually to consist of peasants.\n\nIn Russia the problem of representing these \u201cprofessional\u201d or\n\u201cindustrial\u201d constituencies has been solved with greater ease than is\nlikely to be the case elsewhere. In many cases the owners of industrial\nplants have been expropriated and a \u201cshop-council\u201d is in control. This\nshop-council sees to it that none but members of the labour union\nconcerned are employed in the shop; it is free to hire what expert help\nit requires to carry on production; and in general it rules the roost.\nBut it is an elected body, and it forms the cell-unit out of which,\nthrough a hierarchy of local and provincial bodies, the All-Russian\nCongress of Soviets is at last constituted. Naturally this scheme is not\nyet in universal operation. Some employers are still tolerated to remain\nin possession, and a single rule has not yet been established in the\ntenure of land. But that is the general principle; and while it must\nnecessarily admit in practice of all sorts of exceptions, there is no\nclear reason why it should not become effective throughout Russia.\n\nBut this simplicity is not likely to obtain elsewhere. The forcible\nimmediate expropriation of the employer is not a probable contingency in\nEngland or America so far as one may judge from present signs. But this\nneed constitute no insuperable obstacle to the institution of\nshop-councils such as for instance have been set up in the woollen\ntrades at Bradford. And just as in this instance, the shop-council would\nbe generally the unit out of which an ascending scale of superior bodies\nwould be formed, reaching at last to what the Russians call the \u201csupreme\ncouncil of public economy.\u201d The outline of such an organisation is to be\nfound already in Mr. Malcolm Sparkes\u2019 scheme (referred to in another\nchapter) of a \u201cnational industrial parliament\u201d; and all that need be\nadded to the plan is that this industrial parliament should be\nrecognised as the actual legislative body within its own sphere, subject\nto the review and veto of a final body which would be charged with the\noversight of all the interests of the commonwealth.[41]\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  This \u201cNational Industrial Parliament\u201d has come very near taking\n  practical form in the proposal of the recent National Industrial\n  Conference for a \u201cNational Industrial Council\u201d in England.\n\nStill confining ourselves to the economic interests, we should find it\nnecessary to secure that the labour unions shall find effective\nrepresentation in the legislative organisation; and so long as private\nownership of industrial plant is permitted, the same thing is true of\nemployers\u2019 associations as well. But it is plain that while industry is\nsubject to this antagonism of interests within itself, it is not likely\nto minister to the public interest as effectually as we have a right to\nrequire of it. Ultimately we shall be compelled to establish the\ndoctrine that industrial production is a community-interest and to\ninstitute the principle of national Guilds as the ground plan of\nindustrial organisation. Some approach to this plan has been made during\nthe war in the interests of increased productivity; and the situation\nconsequent upon the war in the belligerent countries is likely to\naggravate rather than abate the acuteness of the problem of\nproductivity. On this account it would be a grave misfortune if industry\nwere permitted to relapse into its pre-war inefficiency. Thorstein\nVeblen, in a shrewd analysis of the working of the capitalistic system\nin America, estimates that it \u201clowers the actual output of the country\u2019s\nindustry by something near fifty per cent. of its ordinary capacity when\nfully employed.\u201d \u201cBut\u201d he adds, \u201cit is at the same time plain enough\nthat this, in the larger sense, untoward discrepancy between productive\ncapacity and current productive output can readily be corrected, in some\nappreciable degree at least, by any sufficient authority that shall\nundertake to control the country\u2019s industrial forces without regard to\npecuniary profit and loss. Any authority competent to take over the\ncontrol and regulate the conduct of the community\u2019s industry with a view\nto maximum output as counted by weight and tale, rather than by net\naggregate price income over price cost can readily effect an appreciable\nincrease in the effectual productive capacity.... The several\nbelligerent nations of Europe are showing that it can be done, and they\nare also showing that they are all aware, and have always been aware,\nthat the conduct of industry on business principles is incompetent to\nbring the largest practical output of goods and service; incompetent to\nsuch a degree indeed as not to be tolerable in a season of desperate\nneed when the nation requires the full use of its productive forces,\nequipment and man power, regardless of the pecuniary claims of\nindividuals.\u201d[42] The course of events seem to point to the institution\nof the \u201csufficient authority\u201d which Professor Veblen indicates. It is\nclear that this authority must be of a character to ignore the\nexigencies of the profit-system, and to operate with an eye single to\nthe welfare of the community; in which case, soon or late, there must be\neliminated from it those who would desire to turn it to a personal or\nsectional advantage. Or at least their possible advantage from industry\nshall be so rigorously abridged as to make it cease to be worth their\nwhile to rig the business in such a way as to retard or otherwise to\ninterfere with output. But, inasmuch as this rigging has been done in\nthe past chiefly at the expense of the workers, they in their turn armed\nthemselves for defence, by joining into unions. With the elimination of\nthe private profit motive from industry, the character of the trade\nunion as a fighting body would largely if not wholly lapse; and the need\nfor its direct representation in industrial control would cease to be\nurgent or even important. Especially would this be true when a minimum\nstandard of life had been fixed and universally applied. The union would\nmerge into the guild which would include not the operatives alone but\nthe entire effective personnel of the industry. Out of these guilds,\nthemselves functioning through a hierarchy of bodies from the single\nshop upward, would be formed the national industrial parliament which\nwould be the effectual economic authority of the community.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  Thorstein Veblen. _The Nature of Peace_, pp. 173, 174.\n\n\n                                  VIII\n\n\nThat this in its turn should be subject to a still higher court goes\nwithout saying. For in this capacity our industrial parliament\nrepresents the community only as producing. The general interests of the\ncommon man who has to eat, drink, clothe himself, find a roof over his\nhead, marry, bring up children, are not subordinate to his interest as a\nproducer; nor are they covered by a parliament which supervises the\nproductive interests alone.[43] The standard of life must be fixed by\nthe common will of the community; and it will be the business of the\nindustrial parliament to see that the volume, quality and conditions of\nproduction shall correspond to this standard; and somewhere there must\nbe a body which also sees to it that the industrial parliament is\ndischarging its task efficiently. It must even be in a position to veto\nthe acts of the industrial parliament should that course become\nnecessary; and this position could be secured by vesting the purchase\nand control of raw material in the hands of this superior body. At the\nsame time it is evident that there are functions which this superior\nbody is not efficient to discharge simply on the ground of its being\nrepresentative of the general consumer. The problems of education and\npublic health, for instance, are highly specialised affairs which a\npurely representative assembly on the traditional lines has proved\nitself incompetent to handle\u2014and it is notorious how both education and\nnational hygiene have had their development governed and deflected from\nits proper course by the too great ascendency of trade and business\ninterests in the legislature. Just as the industrial affairs of the\ncommunity are committed to the charge of those who are directly engaged\nin them, so the education of the country should be in the hands of a\nself-governing body of teachers, and the public health to a\nself-governing medical association\u2014in both cases the personnel being\nregarded as members of a public service serving under standardised\nconditions, and their representative and executive body being like the\nguild parliament answerable to the supreme national assembly.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  It has been suggested that associations of _Consumers_, e.g. the\n  Co-operative Societies, should be represented in the National\n  Industrial Parliament.\n\nIt would be palpably beyond the province of this writing to do more than\nthus roughly indicate the general direction in which the organisation of\ngovernment should and is likely to go; and there are conspicuous\nquestions\u2014such as national finance and the administration of law\u2014which\nwould enter deeply into a detailed discussion but have here to be passed\nby with no more than this cursory mention. It is now desired only to\nemphasise the fact that the actual conditions of modern life have made\nthe existing legislative machinery obsolete, and that moreover they\npoint to the nature of the changes which are required to make the\nmachinery to fit the facts of the case. Summarily, therefore, it may be\nsaid that there are two types of social unit which must be recognised,\nthe one being of the geographical, the other of the vocational order.\nSomewhere these two sources of representation must meet in a supreme\ncommon assembly; and the picture which passes through the mind\u2014say in\nEngland\u2014is of a joint house of county and municipal representatives\nchosen by way of ward and village and district councils, and of\nrepresentatives of accredited national industrial and professional\nassociations. Yet, insomuch as this process of delegation would make the\nsense of connection between the individual citizen and the supreme\nassembly somewhat weak and faint, it would appear to be necessary to\nprovide for some measure of direct popular representation in the\nassembly. So that we should have a house drawing its personnel from\nthree sources\u2014from the people directly, and by delegation from the two\ntypes of social constituency, local and functional. In this body would\nbe vested the supreme and final control of national affairs; and to this\nbody the Guild-parliament and other departmental bodies would render\naccount of their stewardship. It is only in some such way as this that\nremedy is to be found for a state of things, in which, apart from paid\nexperts in administrative departments, the vital interests of industry,\neducation and national health are committed to a body to which the\nchances of a general election may return not one single person competent\nto speak to these matters at first hand.\n\n\n                                   IX\n\n\nIt is not necessary to extend this discussion into further detail since\nwe are concerned only to indicate a direction rather than to describe a\nfinished product. It may, moreover, be justly questioned whether the\nbusiness of government can range to any fruitful purpose beyond the\ncommon economic, hygienic and educational concerns of the community, and\nsuch derivative and concomitant operations as they require for their\neffectual conduct. In any case it would appear that the remaining\ninterests of life abut on the legitimate province of government only at\nminor and somewhat special points. These particular interests are for\nthe most part of the \u201cspiritual\u201d order\u2014religious and cultural; and from\nthe nature of the case it were best to leave them to go their own way in\npeace so long as they may not equitably be charged with encroaching upon\nthe general welfare. Such matters as the property of a religious society\nor an author\u2019s copyright represent the kind of point at which the\nspiritual interests come into some sort of relation with the state; and\nthese are essentially matters in the state-regulation of which the chief\ncare should be to avoid anything that may interfere with independence\nand freedom of thought.\n\nFor when all is said and done, it is in this particular region that we\nmust look for the actual and characteristic fruits of a democratic\norder. The real wealth of a community consists in the capacity it\npossesses and acquires for activity of a creative kind; its true riches\nare \u201cthe riches of the mind.\u201d And in a sense we may say that the\nbusiness of government is to set the house-keeping machinery moving so\nsmoothly and efficiently that there will be real wayleave for the\nspiritual business of life. Just as the best physical condition of a man\nis that in which he is least aware of his body, so the best government\nis that which makes the governed least conscious of its operation. Here\nas elsewhere, _magna ars celare artem_. But is there any guarantee that\nsuch a state-organisation as is here pleaded for will be any more\nfriendly to freedom of thought than the existing type? So far as the\ntraditional state is concerned, it regards freedom of thought largely as\na concession which is not quite congruous with the postulates upon which\nit habitually acts. Freedom of thought has been wrested from the state\nby main force; and then only with the understood proviso that the state\nis empowered on due occasion to withdraw the concession. The habit of\nfree thought has however become so ingrained in the idea of democratic\nprogress that there is now only one due occasion on which the state can\ninterfere with it with any prospect of success\u2014that is, in the event of\nwar. Still from the standpoint of the state, freedom of thought is a\nregrettable, though, as things are, unavoidable defect in its machinery.\nIt interferes sadly with the uniformitarian programme of the typical\ngovernmental mind. But this grudging toleration of freedom of thought is\nan inheritance from the dynastic period when it was necessary to have a\npopulation easily mobilisable for whatever adventure the dynast might\nplan, or whatever necessity of defence might be laid on him. The\ndynastic tradition required a regimentated people; and we have outgrown\nthe dynastic tradition without discarding all its characteristic modes\nof working. This is in part to be accounted for by the fact that the\ncontinued existence of dynastic pretensions and the consequent danger of\ndynastic adventures of a predatory kind has necessitated the survival of\ndynastic ideas and practices as a measure of insurance even in\ncommunities that have discarded the dynastic principle. There will be no\nsecure freedom of thought anywhere so long as the world contains any\npowerful survival of the dynastic tradition.\n\nLatterly the dynastic tradition has (for patent reasons) been the enemy;\nbut it is not unlikely that the downfall of the dynastic tradition may\ndo no more than clear the decks for another more recent predatory\ninstitution, not less ominous for human well-being, which may secure the\nreversion of all the stock-in-trade and goodwill of its predecessor in\nthe matter of national prestige and honour and the like. This is that\ncommercial imperialism which has already insinuated itself into the\nfolds of whatever mantle the dynastic tradition is still able to wear\u2014so\nmuch so that it is popularly believed to be impossible to define the\nfrontier at which dynastic pretensions end and commercial chauvinism\nbegins. In any case it is sure that as the dynastic institution falls\ninto desuetude, this commercial imperialism will make a strenuous effort\nto step into its shoes and arm itself with its weapons. There may be\nsome difference between the person who seeks to gobble up the face of\nthe earth and his brother who seeks to gobble up the markets of the\nearth. But for practical purposes they belong to the same class and will\nuse the same methods. The nations will be persuaded to maintain\nsufficient military establishments to protect national capital when it\nis sent upon profitable adventures beyond the frontier; and the prospect\nof national prosperity and jealousy for national prestige will be worked\nfor all that they are worth in support of these projects. With the net\nresult that the attention of the state will be chiefly directed in the\nfuture as in the past to the furtherance of particularist national\ninterests, and the consequent need of centralised power in the state for\nthe easy regimentation of the people in case of emergency will remain as\na permanent arrest on democratic development. And all this is the more\ntragic in that the \u201cnational\u201d interests alleged to be engaged are in\npoint of fact the interests only of the capitalist class. The rest of\nthe nation stands to gain nothing material from these operations.\n\nThis latter danger can, however, be dealt with by the simple expedient\nof declaring that the capital goes out of the country at its own risk.\nIt is, anyhow, preposterous to assume that capital has any inherent\nright to seek national protection when it travels abroad on private\nventures of its own. That should be as clear as daylight; and its\nrecognition would remove one of the main sources of international\ntrouble. But it would also release the community from a good deal of the\npresent wasteful and distracting preoccupation with the business\nincidental to the chances of international trouble, and leave it free to\nconcern itself with the more vital matters of its inner life. And most\nof all, with the passing of the dynastic danger, this refusal to\nunder-write the risks of profit-seeking capitalistic adventures abroad\nwould remove the chief reason for that residual embargo on utter freedom\nof thought which must exist in a community which has to be held in\nreadiness for swift regimentation. Men will never be wholly free until\nthe possibility of war has disappeared from the earth.\n\nWith the diminution of the chances of international friction, the\nurgency of domestic uniformity will in great part disappear; and\ndemocratic life may be counted upon to express itself in a free and\nunlimited variation of thought and interest. At the same time it is\nobvious that the present doctrine of property-rights within the\ncommunity entails a serious limitation upon the freedom of the mind.\nNotice has already been taken of the effect of the property-privilege as\nit operates in the hands of the capitalist employer upon the freedom of\nthe worker; but the hindrance to freedom ranges far beyond this region.\nIn domestic legislation, the rights of property have virtually been \u201cthe\nlaw and the prophets\u201d; and modern states have shown themselves more\njealous for the defence of vested interests than the culture of the\nnational life. It may be indeed that they have not perceived that these\ntwo things were different, not to say opposed. But how far these vested\ninterests enter into the counsels of the state is evident from the fact\nthat it has tended to treat any doctrine which assails them as criminal;\nand crimes against property are almost invariably treated with greater\nseverity than crimes against the person. While these class rights are\nstill recognised as entitled to the corporate protection of the\ncommunity, there will be a region within which freedom of thought will\nbe still frowned upon and so far as may be denied. The sun is too high\nin the heavens to permit of persecution save in sporadic cases; and it\nwould seem that this is the last ditch in which privilege is still\nentrenched in its retreat before the advance of freedom. _Lese-majest\u00e9_\nhas ceased to be a dangerous crime; the heretic in religion enjoys his\nheresies unmolested; and the accident of noble birth has ceased to\nconfer a privilege. The \u201cdivine rights\u201d of property will presently go\nthe way of the divine right of kings; and then democracy will have all\nits enemies under its feet, unless there may be lurking beyond the\nfrontier some unforeseen and unforeseeable enemy. Yet this enemy too the\nspirit of democracy may be trusted to subdue.\n\nEntire freedom of thought is contingent upon the ultimate disappearance\nof all forms of special and exclusive privilege, whether it appertains\nto monarchy, aristocracy or property; and freedom of thought is still\ntolerated grudgingly because government is contaminated by a survival of\nhabits of thought derived from the doctrine of special inherent and\nsacred rights. The type of government pleaded for in these pages is one\nwhich assumes that no special interest shall have precedence over the\ngood of the social whole, and which requires that every separate\ninterest shall be subordinated to and co-ordinated into a general scheme\nof social welfare. The rights of property will be subject to such\ncurtailment as the common good requires. And since therefore the main\ncauses of existing limitations on freedom of thought will have\ndisappeared, there seems to be no reason why this type of government\nshould at any time take it upon itself to repress or to control thought.\nTo this statement one exception may require to be made parenthetically,\nnamely, that the continuance of sources of international trouble that\nmay eventuate in war will probably necessitate occasional interference\nwith freedom of thought and action. This matter we shall consider in\nmore detail presently. Meantime, it is not rash to believe that in a\nstate of the type here indicated, there will not only be any disposition\nto set bounds upon independent thought but a definite tendency to\nencourage it. It may conceivably come to conceive of national \u201cprestige\u201d\nin terms of perfect and untrammelled intellectual freedom.\n\nThree conditions seem to be necessary to such an end. The first has to\ndo with national education the aim of which should be to make every\nindividual capable of thinking for himself and imparting to him a social\nvision which will discipline and fructify his thought. To this matter\nalso we shall need to return at a later point.\n\nThe second condition is the provision of opportunities of free public\ndiscussion. To this subject some reference has already been made; and\nnothing more extended need now be added, save only, perhaps, the thought\nthat the encouragement of free public discussion is the proper safeguard\nagainst the vagaries and dangers of a suppressed and inarticulate\ndissent. Let the new thing be brought into the Agora as it was in old\nAthens; and the daylight will declare whether it be gold or stubble.\n\nThe third condition is the full and unconditional recognition of the\nright of association,\u2014the only proviso being that no association shall\nhave private or occult or undeclared purposes. A strong tendency to the\nformation of social groups of various kinds, political, cultural,\nreligious, recreational, should be hailed as a sign of life in the\ncommunity. And even if the association be formed for the promulgation of\nthe view of a dissenting minority, it should be as frankly encouraged as\nany other. For no view ever gains a considerable following which does\nnot embody some fact or truth of experience which is necessary to the\nwholeness of life.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                             Chapter VIII.\n                        A DEMOCRATIC WORLD.[44]\n\n    \u201cWe believe in association\u2014which is but the reduction to action of\n    our faith in one sole God, and one sole law, and one sole aim\u2014as the\n    only means we possess of realising the truth; as the method of\n    progress; the path leading towards perfection. The highest possible\n    degree of human progress will correspond to the discovery and\n    application of the vastest formula of association.\n\n    We believe, therefore, in the Holy Alliance of the Peoples as the\n    vastest formula of association possible in our epoch;\u2014in the\n    _liberty_ and _equality_ of the peoples without which no true\n    association can exist; in _nationality_, which is the _conscience_\n    of the peoples, and which, by assigning to them their part in the\n    work of association, their function in humanity, constitutes their\n    mission upon earth, that is to say, their _individuality_, without\n    which neither liberty nor equality is possible; in the sacred\n    _Fatherland_, cradle of nationality, altar and worship of the\n    individuals of which each people is composed.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n    And, as we believe in humanity as the sole interpreter of the law of\n    God, so do we believe in the people of every state as the sole\n    master, sole sovereign, and sole interpreter of the law of humanity,\n    which governs every national mission. We believe in the people, one\n    and indivisible, recognising neither castes nor privileges, neither\n    _proletariat_ nor _aristocracy_, whether landed or financial; but\n    simply an aggregate of faculties and forces consecrated to the\n    well-being of all, to the administration of the common substance and\n    possession, the terrestrial globe.\u201d\u2014\n\n                                                                Mazzini.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  This chapter was written some time before the League of Nations plan\n  adopted at the Peace Conference was issued. It is, in spite of a few\n  points which might require modification, allowed to stand as it was\n  written, since the general course of the argument still appears to be\n  sound, especially as it raises points in relation to which the\n  official scheme will most certainly require great changes.\n\n                  \u201cCome, read the meaning of the deep!\n                     The use of winds and waters learn!\n                   \u2019Tis not to make the mother weep\n                     For sons that never will return.\n\n                   \u2019Tis not to make the nations show\n                     Contempt for all whom seas divide;\n                   \u2019Tis not to pamper war and woe\n                     Nor feed traditionary pride;\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n                    It is to knit with loving life\n                      The interests of land to land,\n                    To join in far-seen fellowship\n                      The tropic and the polar strand.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n                 And more, for Knowledge crowns the gain\n                   Of intercourse with other souls,\n                 And wisdom travels not in vain\n                   The plunging spaces of the poles.\n\n                 O may our voice have power to say\n                   How soon the wrecking discords cease,\n                 When every wandering wave is gay\n                   With golden argosies of peace.\u201d\n\n                                                       \u2014GEORGE MEREDITH.\n\n\nDEMOCRACY can only thrive in a democratic setting; and while any\npowerful remnants of the dynastic tradition survive in the world, it is\nunlikely that democracy will be able to reach the full term of its own\ndevelopment. For the dynastic tradition is from the nature of the case\nof an incurably predatory character; and democracy will be arrested in\nits self-realisation by so much of the dynastic habit of thought and way\nof life as it may be necessary to retain in order to gain immunity from\nattack. It has been one of the commonplaces of the Great War that the\ndemocratic countries have been compelled to defend themselves against\nPrussianism by adopting the familiar Prussian methods of repression and\nregimentation. And what the war has actually provoked is always\npotentially present. So long as there are dynastic nations with highly\ncentralised and omnicompetent authority and consequently in a more or\nless advanced state of preparation for military enterprise, it is not to\nbe expected that their democratic neighbours will leave themselves at\ntheir mercy; and the common democratic rights of freedom\u2014whether of the\nperson or of thought\u2014have to be so far permanently subject to\ncurtailment and even entire suspension in the event of war. It is easy\nto say that once the danger is past, the former liberties will be\nautomatically restored; but it does not so work out in actual fact. For\nauthority is ever loth to relinquish any advantage it has gained; and\nthere are always parties in every community who either on selfish or\nacademic grounds are favourable to the curtailment of democratic rights.\nThe restoration of these rights has commonly to be effected against the\nopposition of parties interested in their curtailment. It is a matter of\ncommon knowledge that powerful interests are already at work, for\ninstance, to secure that the hard-won privileges of the Trade Unions\nshall not be restored to them; and we may expect to find very\nconsiderable and dangerous opposition to the re-establishment of those\ncivil liberties which were suspended \u201cfor the duration of the war.\u201d It\nis not likely, however, that this opposition can be long maintained. But\nit is certain that it will be some time after the close of the war\nbefore the domestic liberties of the democratic countries will be\nrestored to the point which they had reached at the beginning of the\nwar; and by so much democratic advance will have been retarded.\n\n\n                                   I\n\n\nSo that the development of the democratic principle requires the\ncessation of war and of preparedness for war. And this to begin with\nrequires the disappearance of the dynastic tradition. But will the\ndisappearance of the dynastic tradition necessarily carry with it the\nabolition of that preoccupation with national \u201cprestige\u201d and the like\nout of which it has always drawn its strength? The dynasty may vanish;\nbut nationalism may remain; and the catchwords of national prestige and\nnational honour may conceivably become a menace to peace and therefore\nto freedom as real as the dynastic tradition.\n\nAnd at the present time there is, as has been previously shown, a very\nreal possibility that the disappearance of the dynastic tradition may\nleave the door open to another type of predatory nationalism no less\ninjurious to the cause of democracy. This is that \u201ccommercial\nimperialism\u201d to which reference has already been made. The impression\nhas been deeply made upon this generation that the accumulation of\nwealth constitutes the primary business of the community. It should aim\nto become the richest, wealthiest nation. It is not generally perceived\nthat the distribution of this wealth is of a character which robs it of\nany right to be regarded as a \u201cnational\u201d interest. It is the interest\nonly of a comparatively small class within the nation. Yet so sedulously\nhas this illusion of national prosperity been cultivated, and so feeble\nis the faculty of discrimination in the multitude, that it will yet be\npossible for commercial adventurers to invoke and receive national\nendorsement of their projects even to the extent of a guarantee of\nmilitary support in case of need. The surplus capital of a nation will\nseek avenues of activity beyond its frontiers and it will move heaven\nand earth to secure that the nation shall be committed to the business\nof protecting it when it goes abroad. And it will do this by fostering\nthe illusion that in some mysterious way its profitable foreign\nexcursions bring prosperity to the home community. A moment\u2019s reflection\nshould be sufficient to show that operations of this kind will bring to\nno nation any compensation that is even remotely commensurate with the\ncost of guaranteeing them.\n\nNor is it for their foreign adventures alone that these particular\ninterests will work up national pride and prejudice. They look upon the\nhome market with the same avid eye as the foreign; and it is an affair\nof common knowledge that they have not hesitated to inflame national\nfeeling in order to secure invidious protective tariffs against other\nnations. \u201cKeep out the foreigner\u201d is always an effective battlecry; it\nbears a certain immediate and obvious plausibility to the untutored and\nuncritical mind. The argument for free trade labours under the\ndisadvantage of not possessing this kind of effective simplicity. Except\nin cases where free trade has been tried and is supported by experience,\nthe argument for it has to lean upon postulates which are not so easily\ndemonstrable to the crowd and which do not lend themselves to glib\ncatchwords such as the protectionists delight in. It is easy for\ninstance, to show that the prosperity of a particular industry depends\nupon its security against a foreign competition which apparently starts\nwith the superior advantage of cheap labour; and a case may be fairly\nmade for the protection of a young and struggling industry from unequal\ncompetition. The protectionist, however, extends his argument to cover\nall industry; his concern is not for the growth of a struggling industry\nbut for a monopoly of the home markets\u2014what time he is also actively\ninvading foreign markets. The free trader has in reply to show that a\nprotective tariff is a stranglehold upon all industry. Because, for\ninstance, it renders the capitalist producer immune from foreign\ncompetition, it reduces the necessity on his part to improve methods of\nproduction; and in so much as his care is for his profits rather than\nthe real development of industry for the good of the social whole, he\nwill tend to remain content with obsolete and antiquated methods of\nproduction so long as improvement is not essential to the maintenance of\nprofits. Moreover, it works in the direction of compelling the\nindustries of the nation to utilise the raw materials available within\nits own borders even though these be inferior in quality to those\nobtainable elsewhere, with the result that the national industries are\nseriously handicapped in competition in foreign markets, even in some\ncases in the home markets. The problem of clothing oneself in the United\nStates of America is a sufficient illustration of the fantastic illusion\nthat a protective tariff makes for the common good. The tariff on\nwoollen goods may be useful to the owners of the woollen industries in\nAmerica; but the advantage is gained at the expense of the whole people,\nincluding the very operatives in woollen mills.\n\nThis is, however, not the place to state the whole case as between\nprotection and free trade. Chiefly it is to our point here to emphasise\nthe fact that the advocates of a protective tariff belong mainly to the\ncapitalist class; and that they will plead for a protective tariff on\nthe ground of national prosperity, and that national pride and prejudice\nwill be invoked in support of the argument. They will be careful to\nabstain from calling undue attention to the point that a protective\ntariff will discriminate in favour of the classes that are already\nsufficiently prosperous, and their popular argument will have much to\nsay about the high wages of the worker. \u201cMake the foreigner pay\u201d was the\nbattlecry of the Chamberlainite fiscal reformer in England; and what the\nforeigner pays we all enjoy together. It sounds fair enough; until it is\nseen that by no chance whatsoever does the foreigner pay anything. He\nmay lose something in the diminution of his trade; but he pays nothing.\nThe payment is made by the domestic consumer in the higher prices which\nimmediately prevail in respect of \u201cprotected\u201d commodities; and this\nhigher price brings an advantage to whom? To the worker? Not at all, if\nthe capitalist can help it. Will the worker get higher wages? Only if he\nis strong enough to demand it. The empty hypocrisy of this talk about\nnational prosperity should be evident from the fact that the very people\nwho are interested in high prices are those who are equally interested\nin lowering wages. The increase of the wage rate during the war has not\nautomatically or proportionately followed the rise in prices; it has\nalways to be wrested by main force from those whose interest lies in\nkeeping prices high and wages low. Under a protectionist r\u00e9gime, wages\nare rarely high enough to compensate for the higher cost of living, and\nthe more dependent a country is upon importation from abroad, the truer\nis this statement. It is only in countries like the United States of\nAmerica where the natural resources are large and more or less easily\navailable that protection can effect any substantial appearance of\nsocial prosperity, and even in these cases it is scarcely doubtful that\nthe general prosperity would be greatly increased by the removal of a\nprotective tariff. The dividends upon invested capital would no doubt be\nlower; but the general level of material well-being would be appreciably\nraised.\n\nDemocracy must make up its mind upon this point. It must turn a cold and\ncritical eye upon all plausible talk about national prosperity and ask\nwhether this prosperity is in fact the thing it professes to be.\nNational wealth is so inequitably distributed that the production of\nwealth as a national concern is a polity _pour rire_. Protection and\ncommercial imperialism are devices which work in the interests of the\nalready prosperous classes, a very small minority of the community. This\nis not to say that there are not advocates of protective tariffs who\nsincerely believe all they say so fluently about \u201cnational\u201d prosperity;\nof these good people it is not the disinterestedness that is to be\ncalled into question but the intelligence. But it as sure as anything\ncan very well be that if a statutory limit were set upon profits,\nincomes and fortunes, we should hear very little about protective\ntariffs and the need of protecting commercial interests \u201c_in partibus\ninfidelibus_.\u201d To say that this would immediately crush the incentive to\nthe commercial and industrial enterprise of the nation would be an\nunworthy reflection upon the patriotism of those who are at present\ndirecting the enterprise. In any case the point which is coming up for\nthe decision of democratic communities is whether they are going to\nidentify themselves with, and commit themselves to, the support of\nenterprises which primarily serve the interests of a class already well\nenough provided for and which can bring no advantage to the people at\nlarge commensurate with the risk involved in endorsing them. With the\ncrumbling of the dynastic tradition, the one substantial cause still\noutstanding of international misunderstanding is commercial rivalry; but\nthis commercial rivalry is in no sense a rivalry between peoples; it is\npurely a rivalry between the capitalist interests in the different\ncountries. Are the democracies still prepared to suffer arrest of their\nown development by retaining a sort of potential war-footing in the\ninterests of what are after all mainly class-adventures?[45]\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  The proposal to establish an _International Labour Standard_ will, of\n  course, do something to rob the protectionist argument of the force it\n  borrows from playing up the \u201cdumping\u201d of goods produced by underpaid\n  foreign labour.\n\nBut it may be urged that even in the event of the elimination of this\ntype of commercial rivalry, the national feeling would still\nremain\u2014intrinsically and without the adventitious aid of dynastic or\ncommercial interests\u2014a permanent ground of separation and possible\ndissension between peoples, even democratic peoples. We are told that\nthere is such a thing as national \u201chonour\u201d which is a sacred trust and\nwhich the nation must be prepared to defend against all comers. It may\nbe seriously questioned whether this conception of national \u201chonour\u201d is\nnot an archaism which has lapped over from the age when men still talked\nof gambling debts as \u201cdebts of honour\u201d and gentlemen adjusted their\ndifferences by means of \u201caffairs of honour.\u201d It should be evident that\nno nation has any kind of honour which is subject to real offence save\nat its own hands, or which can be forfeited save by its own act; and a\nnation in anything like a mature stage of ethical development should be\n(in a memorable phrase) \u201ctoo proud to fight\u201d merely because its _amour\npropre_ had been pricked by some ill-behaved urchin among the nations.\nNo self-respecting citizen resorts to fisticuffs in order to avenge an\ninsult; and the more self-respecting he is the more effectual is the\ninterior constraint which forbids him to act in that way. And it is\nequally inconceivable that a self-respecting nation should think it\nworth while to assert itself in a retaliatory way against what after all\ncan amount to no more than rudeness or impertinence. It is true that\nthere is a good deal of residual superstition in this particular region\nwhich is apt to magnify out of all proportion the significance of such\nimproprieties as disrespect to the flag; but a little good humoured\nrealism is all the antidote that is required. Such things as these have\nno real meaning except where symbolic and formal punctilio still takes\nprecedence over the actualities of life. For the rest, the only possible\nsources of offence to national honour lies in the region where national\nhonour travels abroad in the persons of official and unofficial\nindividuals of that nation. But at this time of day, it is inconceivable\nthat any issues should arise in this region which are not capable of\neasy and friendly adjustment. In point of fact, that is what usually\nhappens. Apologies are made; a formula is adopted; and the affair blows\nover. It will occur to the cynical that in recent times the point of\nhonour has been chiefly insisted upon on such occasions as the pursuit\nseemed likely to eventuate in some material advantage; in any case the\npoint of honour survives only as an affair of statesmen and diplomats\nand provokes no more than a languid interest in the remainder of the\nnation, which has more pressing concerns on hand. National \u201chonour\u201d\nseems on the whole to be but a frill left over from the day in which the\ndivine right of kings was still a live dogma.\n\nIn the fact of nationality itself there is nothing which necessarily\ntends to a breach of the peace. We know that it represents no fact of\norganic inheritance which is bound to perpetuate divisions of an\nunfriendly or unneighbourly kind between peoples. There is no modern\n\u201cnation\u201d which can claim homogeneity of racial origin, of language, of\nreligion. It describes a political unity within which a people by the\nsimple process of living together has developed and is continuing to\ndevelop a particular way of life and quality of culture. The peculiar\ncolour of national life is due of course to some extent to its\ngeographical location, to the circumstances of its history, and to its\nnatural resources, but national unity is achieved in the evolution of a\ncommon tradition and a common culture. Nor is it possible to fix any\nreal bounds to the growth of a nation. It is a historical commonplace\nhow the small primitive groupings of man have steadily grown in extent\nuntil we have reached the stage of vast aggregations of polyglot peoples\ncomprehended under a single national name\u2014like the British Empire and\nthe United States. The \u201cnation\u201d possesses no fixity, and national\nfeeling undergoes continual change and modification as the result of\nchanging circumstances. There are many like the present writer whose\nearly schooling left them with the impression that there was a necessary\nand permanent antagonism of interest between the British and French; but\nsince then the Entente Cordiale and other momentous happenings have\ncompletely banished that hoary tradition from the British mind. It is,\nmoreover, not open to question that the increase and improvement of\nmeans of communication have done much to dispel the ignorance from which\nnational prejudice and international suspicion drew their strength. The\nbiological judgment upon nationality is pertinent to this point: \u201cAll\nthe most important agencies producing the divergent modification of the\nnations are human products and can be altered.\u201d[46] These agencies are\npresumably the factors which constitute what Mr. Benjamin Kidd called\nsocial heredity; and he has shown with great force how possible it is to\n\u201cimpose the elements of a new social heredity\u201d on a whole people and to\nchange its character accordingly.[47] The sum of the matter is that\nnationality is a fluid and changing entity; and its intrinsic nature and\nits history appear to point to the conclusion that it is a necessary\nstage in the evolution of human society, by which the caveman is to\nbecome at last a citizen of the world. There is nothing to justify the\nexpectation that present national characters and national frontiers will\nremain as permanent factors in the life of the world.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  Chalmers Mitchell, _Evolution and the War_, p. 90.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  Benjamin Kidd, _The Science of Power_, p. 305.\n\nThis does not mean that the world will not continue to be organised on\nthe basis of nationality; it means only that the present national\ndivisions are not permanent. The law of natural variation will operate\nin producing diversity in the complexion and culture of communities; and\nthe race will contain to the end an infinite variety of social types.\nIndeed as the dynastic imperial tradition decays, the tendency to induce\nuniformity among the peoples brought under a common rule will disappear;\nand the free play of variation will probably be more evident in the\nfuture than it has been, at least in the near past. The emphasis upon\nthe rights of small nations and the disruption of Russia and of the Dual\nMonarchy into their constituent nations both alike indicate that we\nshall have a considerable accentuation of distinctive national types in\nthe years ahead of us. But this is not in any sense a matter for\nmisgiving; for the larger the variety of typical national cultures, the\nmore varied and rich will the life of the race become. As Lord Bryce\nsaid in the early days of the war, the world was already too uniform and\nwas becoming more uniform every day; and a reaction from uniformity is a\nsign of renewed life.\n\nAt the same time it must not be forgotten that without some balancing\nprinciple there are dangers inherent in nationality. It has been justly\nobserved that nationality is an admirable thing when it is being\nstruggled for, but that once achieved it is apt to become a peril. The\npassion for nationality may overshoot its mark. National\nself-consciousness may breed national self-conceit; and out of this\ntemper especially under the conditions of modern commerce may grow the\nspirit of aggression. It is useless to hide this fact from ourselves;\nthe recent history of Italy gives ample demonstration of it. The Italy\nof Garibaldi was hardly recognisable in the Italy of the Tripoli\nadventure. It is therefore necessary that the nations that have come to\nnew birth in the world-travail of these last five years, should be\npreserved from the danger of becoming aggressive at the expense of their\nneighbours, and in this necessity is contained in little the entire\nproblem of international integration which is likely to occupy the minds\nof statesmen and political thinkers in the coming century. At the same\ntime the ultimate security of the peace which is necessary to the\nprogress of the democratic principle must lie not in external safeguards\nand checks but in the increasing democratisation of national life. The\nelimination of those residual predatory interests which still dog the\nsteps of democracy and are still able to pervert it to their own ends\nmay be helped by the creation of international machinery which will\nlimit the area of their opportunities; but it depends most of all upon\nthe progressive disappearance of class and sectional privileges within\nthe nations. For privilege is always predatory; and so long as there\nstill remain privileged classes within the nations no international\nmachinery of adjustment and restraint can do more than preserve a highly\nprecarious equilibrium between conflicting interests.\n\n\n                                  III\n\n\nUpon this whole subject there is little to be said which is not already\nperfectly clear to those who have given it any serious thought. Two\ncourses are open, and only two, to modern democracies. They may choose\nto retain the traditional dogmas of national sovereignty and \u201chonour,\u201d\nand the current acceptances of the business system, or they may resolve\nupon a break with the past. The consequences of the first choice are\nperfectly evident from the state into which the world has been brought\nby its operation in the near past. It implies the retention of a\nprivileged class with interests to be defended at home and abroad; it\nwill work out in competitive commerce and as a natural corollary in\ncompetitive armaments. And competitive armaments soon or late mean war.\nIt has already been pointed out how the doctrine of military\n\u201cpreparedness\u201d must inevitably retard and arrest the realisation of\ndemocratic liberty within the nation, but it must farther be recognised\nthat any general retention of military establishments, under the\nconditions of modern industry, must eventuate in the total destruction\nof democracy and civilisation. The other choice means a deliberate and\nprogressive attempt to organise the intercourse of nations upon a basis\nof reciprocity and co-operation. Even though the consequences of such an\nattempt may be at present uncertain and problematical, it may at least\nbe asserted that they cannot be worse than those which have so\ntragically ensued from the former tradition.\n\nIndeed, we have already come to a state of the world in which the former\ntradition has long ceased to correspond to actuality. So long as the\nmeans of communication remained elementary and slow, it was possible for\nnations to live more or less independent lives and it was in their\ninterest to become self-sufficing and self-contained. They were\nsufficiently far from one another to meet only in the event of border\nbrawls or of predatory excursions on a large scale on the part of a\nstrong neighbour against a weaker. But with the modern development of\nthe means of communication a policy of isolation has become utterly\nimpossible. The world has become a neighbourhood; and national interests\nare inextricably intertwined. When President Wilson said in 1916 that\nthe European War was the last great war out of participation in which it\nwould be possible for the United States to remain, he was speaking with\nthis particular circumstance in mind; and not even his foresight was\nsufficient at that time to see that the day of isolation was already\nover. In six months, the United States was engulfed in the bloody\nmaelstrom. The policy of national isolation is obsolete; and the persons\nwho advocate military preparedness and protective tariffs are \u201cback\nnumbers.\u201d These atavistic policies are no longer possible except at the\ncost of the incalculable impoverishment of the nation which adopts them.\nThe nation that shuts others out also shuts itself in and will slowly\nperish from an inbreeding mind and an ingrowing energy. For the barrier\nagainst mutual confidence and goodwill which is military preparedness,\nand the barrier against reciprocal trade, which is a protective tariff,\nhinder much more than the exchanges of friendship and trade. They hinder\nthat exchange of spiritual, intellectual and cultural goods which are on\nany radical analysis more essential to a people\u2019s growth and wealth than\nits trade.\n\nEven as things are, those barriers are not sufficient to prevent a\ncertain mutuality in trade and in culture. Neither the German tariff\ncould keep Sheffield steel out of Germany, nor does the United States\ntariff keep Bradford cloth out of America, and in the region of\nintellectual and cultural interests the commerce has attained in recent\ntimes a considerable briskness. But in the present state of the world,\nwhy should a nation still cling to the illusion that it is a source of\nstrength to be self-contained? It is simply silly to continue to live on\nhomemade goods and homemade ideas when one\u2019s neighbours are ready to\nsupply those which they are in a position to produce better than\nourselves, and to supply them freely on a basis of fair exchange; and it\nis no compensation for the consumption of second-rate goods that it\nhelps to increase the bank balance of a few of one\u2019s countrymen,\nespecially when these few countrymen who are thus profited can out of\ntheir profits procure the superior foreign article which they put out of\nthe reach of the rest.\n\nThe organisation of the world upon a basis of international reciprocity\nbecomes a necessity by reason of the proximity into which modern means\nof communication have thrown the peoples. The process is indeed already\nafoot and in spite of hindrances will inevitably grow in power and\nrange; and we are only anticipating events when we set out to organise\nthe nations on a foundation of mutuality. The process is, however, not\nwithout its difficulties; and the conditions which are necessary in\norder to create a league of nations bound together by a principle of\nreciprocity may be passed in brief review.\n\n\n                                   IV\n\n\nFirst of all it is necessary that the last vestige of imperial dominion\nshould disappear. A nation which is held unwillingly within a particular\npolitical unity should be emancipated and be set up in independence.\nReal reciprocity is only possible on a foundation of common freedom, and\nit is a pre-requisite of any scheme of world federation that any\nso-called \u201csubject\u201d nation which puts in a claim to independence should\nhave its claim conceded at sight. The whole conception of reciprocity is\ndenied when a nation is dragged into the scheme at the tail of another.\nAt the same time it should be made clear that an independence thus\nrecognised does not carry with it the prerogative of a sovereignty of\nthe traditional kind. Independence is to mean autonomy in domestic\naffairs but not independent action in external affairs. Reciprocity\nimplies joint action in matters of international interest; and in so\nmuch as the working of a reciprocal scheme implies the power of\nauthoritative action by some superior joint council, it is clear that\nthere must be a cession of such portion of national sovereignty as is\nimplied in the joint transaction of international affairs. Nor is this\nto be a rule merely for the lesser or the newly emancipated nations.\nClearly it must be a rule for all nations great or small which enter\ninto the arrangement. It is supposed that the nations will be found\nunready to make this surrender; in which case it is in no need of\ndemonstration that a League of Nations is impossible save only for the\npurely negative business of adjusting difficulties and settling\ndisputes. That indeed were a great gain, even though from the nature of\nthe case it would in all probability be only temporary. Nations still\nboasting sovereignty would soon or late be tempted to take matters into\ntheir own hands in the event of adjustments and settlements which proved\nunsatisfactory. But in point of fact there is no difficulty at all about\nthis cession of sovereignty except in the minds of incurable jingoes or\nlegal doctrinaires. The thing has been done and is in practice on a\nlarge scale already. That vast unity called the United States of America\nbecame and remains possible only because independent states have\nvoluntarily ceded certain elements of their sovereignty to a federal\nauthority; and there is no objection other than that of chauvinistic\nprejudice or of academic theory which could effectually prevent the\ncreation of a United States of Europe on the same basis and a greatly\nextended United States of America as well.\n\nBut it requires to be emphasised at this point that we need less a\nleague of nations than a league of peoples; and if it be alleged that\nthis is a distinction which implies no real difference, the answer must\nbe made that the difference is indeed deep and vital. Sir Rabindranath\nTagore has lately criticised the idea of the nation on the ground that\nit is the organisation of a people in the interests of its material\nwelfare and power;[48] and insomuch as the nation finds its focus in the\nsovereign state, its effect is separative and divisive. A league of\nnations in the Western World would tend to be a league of states, of\ngovernments; and the psychological inheritance of such a league would\ntend to an undue preoccupation with schemes and policies rather than the\nbroader matters of human intercourse. It is inconceivable that a league\nof nations will be able to divest itself from the characteristic\nstock-in-trade of the specialist in \u201cforeign affairs,\u201d since it would\nnaturally be engineered by statesmen schooled in the traditional order.\nNo league has any chance of permanence which does not break wholly with\nthe current conventions of international business; and the only hope of\nsuch a break lies in the direct selection by the people of the various\ncountries of their own representatives on the council of the league. The\nleague must be democratically controlled; and that with as much direct\ndemocratic power as such expedients as proportional representation and\nrecall can secure. The foreign offices of Europe are so incurably\nsteeped in an evil tradition that the less they have to do with any\nfuture league the better. The secrecy, the intrigue, the diplomatic\n_finesse_ in which they have been expert are incongruous with the\ndemocratic principle; and it is necessary in the interest of\ninternational understanding that they should be put out of commission\nwith all decent haste. The kind of domestic organisation for foreign\nbusiness which a league of nations requires differs _toto coelo_ from\nthe existing institution; and it will have to be built from the bottom\nup.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  See _Atlantic Monthly_, March, 1917, p. 291.\n\nA league of peoples requires plain dealing in the open; but there is\nnothing gained even then if there be no public apprehension of the\nnature of the business in hand. Hitherto, the common man has displayed\nbut a flickering interest in the external affairs of his country; and\nthis vast and important region has been left the monopoly of a\ncomparatively small coterie of people who have made the shunning of\npublicity a fine art. This circumstance is bound up with the fact that\nspeaking generally these persons have consistently belonged to the\nprosperous classes; and the conventions of the diplomatic tradition have\nmade it a preserve of people possessing considerable independent\nincomes. It is needless to observe how inevitably the whole service must\nbe vitiated by this anti-democratic discrimination. The established\nsystem is secured by employing in it only those whose upbringing and\neducation have instilled into them the spirit of class superiority and\nascendency. The Foreign Offices of Europe have from the nature of the\ncase been the breeding ground of jingoism and chauvinism. The principle\nof democratic control in foreign affairs, both by the public discussion\nof international business and by the thorough democratisation of Foreign\nOffices is a _sine qua non_ not alone of democracy at home but of any\nsuch league of peoples as may be established.\n\nIt follows as a corollary that there should be a systematic education of\nthe people in foreign affairs. Popular ignorance would nullify any\nadvantage which accrued from the democratisation of the control and the\nconduct of international business. For the control and conduct would\nunder such conditions pass back into the hands of specialists and\nexperts and interested parties. This popular education does not fail to\nbe considered in detail at this point. But it may be questioned whether\nit can be effectively sustained unless in some form or another foreign\nrelations can be made a permanent issue of domestic politics. Perhaps we\nmay come to the point of instituting the popular election of the persons\nin whom the responsibility of foreign business shall be vested. At the\npresent time it is only rarely, and then but in a subordinate way, that\nquestions of foreign policy enter into the issues of an election; and\nuntil some means is devised of educating the public mind in the\nsubject-matter of foreign relations, this condition will continue.\n\n\n                                   V\n\n\nIt is, however, likely that the force of circumstances may expedite this\nprocess of education. The articles of the coming peace are guaranteed to\ncontain a provision for general disarmament; and so far as Europe is\nconcerned, this will be a work of necessity and not of supererogation.\nProfessor Delbr\u00fcck, for instance, has come to acknowledge that the\n\u201cderided notions\u201d of disarmament, hitherto \u201centertained only by persons\nof no account,\u201d are likely to be raised to \u201cthe position of the ruling\nprinciple of our time.\u201d[49] His conversion is due to the fact that the\nwar will leave the belligerents of Europe in a financial position which\nwill not only make the increase of armaments impossible, but will\nrequire the very drastic reduction of their military establishments. The\nonly danger to the process of disarmament lies in the circumstance that\ntwo of the belligerent powers, the United States and Japan, have been so\nlittle crippled by the war that they are in a position and may get into\nthe mood to maintain large armaments. It is useless to obscure from\nourselves the further circumstance that these two powers that are in a\nposition to afford large military establishments look upon one another\nwith a considerable measure of suspicion despite their recent\nassociation upon the same side in the war, and the formal professions of\nmutual good-will that have latterly been made. It must be borne in mind\nthat Japan is still mainly dynastic in government and consequently\nimperialistic in spirit, that its economic development seems to require\nan expansion of marketing opportunities, and that its over-population\nwill stimulate emigration. In these matters there is plenty of\ninflammable stuff; and we should be guilty of not facing the facts of\nthe case, did we not perceive that by reason of the attraction which\nWestern America has for the Japanese emigrant, and of the peculiar\ninterest which America has taken in the welfare of China, situations of\nvery great peril may arise between Japan and the United States. It is\nupon such a state of the case that the argument for universal military\nservice in America will be based; and indeed must be based; as it is\ninconceivable that any American in his senses should apprehend any\ndanger from the other side of the Atlantic. The certain democratisation\nof Europe and the virtual certainty of the impossibility on financial\ngrounds of any considerable war-like enterprise on the part of the\nEuropean nations make the contingency of a Transatlantic war unthinkable\nat the present time, or indeed at any future time. This, of course,\npre-supposes that the causes of friction likely to arise from the\nnational underwriting of private foreign investments will be removed by\na common understanding that the private ventures of capital abroad are\nmade at its own risk.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  _Pr\u00fcssische Jahrbucher_ (November, 1917).\n\nThe possible strain of the situation between the United States and Japan\nis, however, already alleviated to some extent by the prospect of a\ndemocratic movement in the latter country. Japan can in any case hardly\nexpect to keep its institutions intact if it enters into reciprocal\nrelations with democratic communities. Now, for the first time, a\ncommoner is premier of Japan; and the widespread social discontent is\nlikely to stimulate the tendency to popularise the machinery of\ngovernment. It is probably too much to expect in the present state of\nJapanese education, that the veneration in which the dynasty is held\nwill speedily disappear. Yet after the swift and dramatic disappearance\nof \u201cdivine rights\u201d in Germany, it is not wise to assume that historical\nprocesses of this type are necessarily slow.\n\nApart, however, from the possible causes of friction between the United\nStates and Japan, there seems to be little insuperable difficulty in\nreaching an international understanding concerning disarmament.[50] Upon\nsuch an understanding, the whole future of the projected League of\nNations hangs. The League will be no more than an empty shell if the\nconstituent nations still continue to go about with loaded fire-arms.\nYet even if the League itself were not to come into existence\nimmediately the economic necessity of disarmament would of itself\nsuffice to change international relationships very profoundly. Reduction\nin armaments will involve a revolution in foreign policy. For the two\nthings go together. A particular kind of foreign policy requires a\ncorresponding scale of armaments; and the state of a nation\u2019s armaments\nvery materially affects the objects and the tone of its foreign policy.\nIn a word the reduction of armaments would compel the nations in some\nsort to moralise their mutual relations. The old basis of\nambition-_cum_-fear backed by force will have to be displaced by a\npractice of plain dealing and mutual understanding. Since the nations\ncannot afford to fight one another for some time to come, there is\nnothing for it but that they learn to behave themselves properly toward\neach other. After a while it is permissible to hope that they would not\nwant to fight each other.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  This statement does not seem quite so true now as when it was written,\n  in view of the provisions of the Peace Treaty.\n\n\n                                   VI\n\n\nBut if disarmament is likely to compel a new type of international\ndealing, it is plain that there must be some kind of international\nclearing house. We have gone past the stage at which one nation can\ntransact a bargain with another which will not affect the interests of a\nthird party. The shrinkage of the world has thrown the nations too\nclosely together for any of them to suppose that they can determine\ntheir policies in isolation and carry them through piece-meal with this\none and that, without reference to the rest. Preferential trade\nagreements, for instance, are not merely an affair of the contrasting\nparties; they affect all the nations. And it is impossible any longer\u2014in\nthe absence of _force majeure_\u2014to establish relations of that kind\nwithout the consent of the rest of the world. The case for an\ninternational clearing house is indeed at this time of day irresistible.\n\nMoreover, the immediate stress of the food-situation throughout the\nworld is certain to require some such organ for the co-ordination and\nthe distribution of the available food-supply. It seems likely that the\nsupply of food for the world will be for some years inadequate to the\nneed without careful distribution; and it will require the most careful\norganisation and rationing of what food there is if the people of some\nparts of the world are to escape very great and protracted hardship. For\nthis, a clearing house is necessary. Fortunately we have the foundations\nof this organisation already laid\u2014on the one hand in the machinery of\ninternational distribution created by Mr. Hoover, and on the other in\nMr. David Lubin\u2019s far-seeing institution of an international bureau for\nthe survey of the world\u2019s grain resources. From a central organisation\nof this kind the world will need to receive its food for some time to\ncome.\n\nNor is the problem of food the only urgent matter of this kind. There\nwill be presently a very great demand for the raw material of industrial\nproduction. In the past, raw material has been provided by means of\nprivate ventures of all kinds on a competitive basis. Any reversion to\nsuch a chaotic and uncoordinated method of providing raw material would\nbe attended by consequences of a most disastrous kind. There would be no\nguarantee of equitable distribution among the nations; with the result\nthat those unfavourably placed in the matter of capital or credit, would\nbe put in a position of permanent and increasing economic dependence and\ndisability. If the nations now released from ancient tyrannies are to be\nset upon their feet, it is plain that they must receive supplies of raw\nmaterial as nearly adequate for their need as possible. Otherwise we may\ncreate a number of pauper nations. In addition to this fact, there is\nalso the danger that the private exploitation of the sources of raw\nmaterial would tend to the subjugation of backward peoples whose lands\nchanced to be rich in such material. It is an old and a shameful story\nhow the need of civilisation for raw material has led to the laceration\nand impoverishment of the native population of (say) Africa; and it is\nnecessary that the conscience of the world should refuse to tolerate the\nsystem of concessions and the like which made this criminality possible.\nOn both grounds\u2014the need of industrial production among the civilised\npeople, and the rights of the undeveloped peoples\u2014a system of the joint\ninternational quest and distribution of raw material is requisite.\n\nThis international rationing of raw material may seem a drastic and\nimpracticable proposal; but any consideration of its alternatives must\ndrive us to the conclusion that we cannot escape some experiment however\ninadequate in this direction. In the present state of the world, the\nbalance is so overwhelmingly in favour of the strong nations that any\nperpetuation of the private and competitive quest of raw materials will\nsimply lead to a struggle of great commercial imperialisms in which the\nvictims will be the weak nations. Just as the unprivileged classes\nwithin the nation have been the victims of the great industrial powers,\nthe weaker nations which start with a handicap in the struggle will be\ndisabled in perpetuity and will be squeezed between their stronger\nneighbours. It is difficult to see that the economic dependence and\nsubjection of one nation to another differs appreciably in its\nconsequences to the people at large from that political dependence and\nsubjection to destroy which the European war was undertaken and fought\nat so terrific a cost.\n\n\n                                  VII\n\n\nThe necessity and the logic of the case leads us therefore, to expect\nthe creation of an international organisation which shall have certain\npositive functions in addition to the negative task of mitigating the\ncauses of international friction and the adjustment of differences. The\nhope of the permanence of the League lies in its positive activities\nrather than in its purely negative offices. Moreover, the just rationing\nof food and raw material would of itself so considerably diminish the\npossibility of international misunderstanding, that we may look to the\nextension of the positive and integrative functions of the League while\nthe need of purely mediatorial activity would naturally decrease. Nor\nhave we exhausted the matters in which the need of the nations requires\naction and organisation of a constructive and positive kind. At the\npresent time it is plain that some of the peoples newly liberated are\nnot in a position to conduct their affairs without outside assistance.\nPalestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia, for instance, must be guided and\nprotected for some time to come; and while the peoples of these\ncountries might choose to be placed under the wing of one or other of\nthe existing \u201cgreat\u201d powers, it is not open to argument that such a\nconnection should be under an arrangement which secured the\naccountability of the protecting power to an international body. If\nGreat Britain becomes foster-mother to Palestine, or France to Syria,\nthe agreement should be so formulated that this relationship is always\nsubject to revision at the hands of the League of Peoples. The case with\nthe native populations in the former German colonies is still more\nclear. Africa, in especial, has suffered unspeakable things from the\nimperialistic rivalries of the European nations; and its whole future\ndevelopment is bound up with a guarantee that its territory and its\npeoples shall be immune from invasion and exploitation at the hands of\nnations with selfish purposes. This again points to the institution of a\nsystem of international tutelage and supervision. It goes without\nsaying, of course, that any such international action should consist not\nonly of protection and tutelage, but of education into self-government.\nThe question as to the mode in which this international supervision\nshould be exercised is secondary. The proposal that it should be made\neffective by means of international commissions is met with the\nobjection that international commissions have proved to be a failure in\npractice. In some cases this is doubtless true; but it is not the whole\ntruth. The Danube Commission and the Postal Union furnish examples of\nsuccessful management by international commission. But there is no need\nto mix up the question of international supervision with the method of\nrendering it effective. There appears to be no inconsistency in\nmaintaining that the method of international commission would be most\nfruitful in some instances, while the method of devolving the work upon\na single nation suitably placed for doing it would be more advantageous\nin other cases. In those instances, where a weak or backward people is\ncapable of appreciating the alternatives, there is no reason why the\nchoice should not be left to the people themselves.\n\nOne of the further consequences of the contraction of the world is that\nhealth has become an international question. The days when a plague\ncould be confined to a city are over.[51] The recent spread of the\nso-called \u201cSpanish\u201d influenza is an instance which proves how\nindissolubly bound together the world has come to be. And the system of\nnational quarantines has to be superseded by an international organ for\nthe localisation and the extirpation of diseases which like the bubonic\nand the pneumonic plagues are capable of easy and destructive diffusion;\nand for the removal of those conditions of filth and insanitation in any\npart of the world to which these scourges owe their origin. It is\nlikely, moreover, that the great increase in pulmonary and venereal\ndiseases as by-products of the war require international handling if\ntheir worst consequences are to be averted.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  If, indeed, there ever were any such days. In 1665, the Great Plague\n  was brought from London to Eyam, a little Derbyshire town, in a parcel\n  of cloth consigned to the local tailor!\n\nIt will also belong to the proposed international body to oversee and\nimprove the facilities for travel and transport. Obviously this is\nlargely a question of keeping the seas an open highway for traffic. The\nphrase \u201cthe freedom of the seas\u201d has a special connotation in current\ndiscussions which is apt to obscure the real point at issue. The claim\nmade by the German Government for the establishment of the \u201cfreedom of\nthe seas\u201d seemed and was intended to imply that British naval supremacy\nhad constituted a hindrance to sea-borne trade in normal times. No one\nwith any historical knowledge would be able to consent to that judgment.\nBritish naval supremacy has been in no sense a limitation upon the\n\u201cfreedom of the seas\u201d in times of peace. The seas have always been free\nin modern times; and so far from its having been restricted by British\nnaval supremacy, a good case may be made out for the contrary view. The\nsafety of the high seas is possibly more connected with the efficiency\nof the British navy than a superficial judgment might allow. The freedom\nof the seas only comes in question in war time; and if we are minded to\neliminate war from the world the whole problem loses its relevancy\nanyhow, except in so far that some measure of police surveillance may\ncontinue to be necessary. In the meantime it should be remembered that\nthe insular position of Great Britain has created the necessity in past\ntimes for a strong navy in order to secure the freedom of the seas for\nits own commerce; but it is not to be maintained for a moment that it\nhas in recent times used its supremacy to limit the freedom of other\ncommerce. Even if the policing of the high seas should be placed by the\ninternational authority in the hands of Great Britain, its past record\nshows that it may be trusted; and in any case its own interest in the\nfree and unimpeded passage of commerce upon the seas is a guarantee that\nit would discharge its office effectually.\n\nStill, it is probably not desirable that the control of the seas should\nbe devolved upon a single power. The universal interests of the nations\nin the franchise of the ocean highways make it necessary that their\nprotection be an international obligation. This part of the problem\nshould, however, present no insuperable difficulty. In practice the high\nseas are to all intents and purposes already neutralised. Our\ndifficulties arise when we come to the question of narrow inter-ocean\nwaterways. The most conspicuous, though perhaps not the most important,\ncase of this type, is the water connecting the Black and the \u00c6gean Seas;\nand the obvious solution lies in the permanent neutralisation of the\nBosphorus, the Sea of Marmora and the Dardanelles. There is no\ndifficulty involved in the institution of an international commission to\ncarry this project into effect. This particular outlet affects so many\nnations that it is intolerable that it should remain the particular\nproperty of a single nation; and the only possible alternative is this\nof neutralisation under international commission. The straits of\nGibraltar present a different though a no more difficult problem. With\nthe development of modern ordnance, the military and political\nimportance of the Rock of Gibraltar has virtually disappeared; and its\nvalue is chiefly that of a naval base and coaling station. It is\ndifficult to see what purpose under modern conditions the retention of a\nkind of British sovereignty in the Straits serves. In the days when the\nroute to India had to be protected, it was of course another story; and\nthere is really no reason why the Straits of Gibraltar\u2014as well as all\nother narrow waterways\u2014should not be neutralised in perpetuity under\ninternational guarantee. The experience of the present war in the matter\nof submarine attacks on merchant ships in the Mediterranean showed how\nineffectual any guardianship of the Straits is likely to be in the\nfuture; and the same thing is true of all waterways which are not\nsufficiently narrow to be swiftly barred against entrance by submarine\ncraft.\n\nThe most thorny part of this problem lies in the question of the two\ngreat inter-ocean canals, Suez and Panama. These two passages are now\nheld by single powers though they are governed in such a way as to give\nvirtual equality of use to the seacraft of all nations. Apart from the\nprofits which accrue to the possessing nations from the charges upon\ntraffic, it is difficult to see what advantage the arrangement\npossesses. It is in the interest of the possessing nations to encourage\nthe general use of the canals, so much so, indeed, that it has been\nfound expedient by the United States to renounce the idea of\npreferential treatment to its own shipping in the Panama Canal. Probably\nnot much would be immediately gained by the neutralisation of these\ncanals, though it is likely that the pressure of circumstances may lead\nto such an event at a later time. Nevertheless, any international\nauthority would find it necessary to secure that craft of all nations\nshould have free and equal access to the canals at all times.\n\nBut the facilitation of international traffic is not an affair of the\nwater only. It is no less essential that the great trunk railroads\nshould be effectually co-ordinated. The British project of an \u201call-red\nroute\u201d round the world is an instance of the kind of co-ordination that\nis required. The Interstate Railroad Commission of the United States\nsupplies the idea at another angle. The convenient international\ntransport of persons and commodities, the regulation of time-schedules,\nof fares and freights, is surely part of the subject matter of a League\nof Nations. It has long been seen that the roads of a nation are its\narteries and veins; and the provision of cheap and easy transit for\npersons and things may well become one of the most potent factors in the\ncohesive energy of a League of Nations.\n\nEnough has already been said upon the conditions of international trade\nwhich are requisite to the project of a League of Peoples. Invidious\nprotective tariffs, \u201cfavoured nation\u201d clauses, preferential arrangements\nof any kind must work injuriously to the process of integration. That\nthese devices are also injurious to the nations which utilise them is of\nless moment to us at this point than their effect in creating rivalry\nand antagonism. To secure a genuine and universal reciprocity in trade\nshould be one of the aims of the league, as it will also be one of the\nprimary conditions of its consolidation and growth.\n\n\n                                  VIII\n\n\nBut may not this concentration of authority in the hands of an\ninternational body create a kind of super-state? In any case this danger\nis very remote at the present time; but it is no less necessary that at\nits inception conditions should be agreed upon which will safeguard it\nfrom such a tendency. This might be done in one of two ways. It might,\nfor instance, be ordained that the machinery of the League should not be\nunitary, but that the commissions requisite for various purposes should\nbe independently appointed by the contracting nations and derive their\nmandate directly from them; and in the event of overlapping, the\ncommissions concerned might adjust the matter by joint session. The\nother alternative is that there should be a supreme international\nauthority, but that it should be subject to a \u201cBarrier Act.\u201d[52] This\nwould provide that the power and the enactments of the authority should\nbe perpetually subject to the revision of the contracting parties; and\nit would be impossible for the international body to take any material\nstep outside the limits of its mandate and consequently to extend its\nsphere of authority without the general consent of the nations\nconcerned. Perhaps both these conditions are necessary\u2014the direct\nappointment of commissions and the Barrier Act; and in any case a\ngeneral agreement should be reached beforehand as to the limits and\nnature of the functions to be vested in the international body. It is\nplain, of course, that in any event the League must stand upon consent.\nIt will be a voluntary association of free peoples; and its maintenance\nwill depend upon the impossibility of its ever accruing any authority\nsufficient to prevent the withdrawal of any nation which might be so\nminded. It is questionable whether once the League had come into\noperation, any nation could afford to withdraw; but no power should be\nveiled in it to coerce a nation to remain in the League against its\nwill. The basis of free and voluntary association is the only guarantee\nof genuine and fruitful solidarity.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  The Barrier Act was a Presbyterian device against hasty innovation.\n  \u201cEvery proposal which contemplates a material change in the\n  constitution of the Church or in its laws respecting doctrine,\n  discipline, government, or worship, after being considered and\n  accepted by the Synod, must be sent down to Presbyteries for their\n  approval or disapproval, before it can become the law of the Church.\u201d\n  (The Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church of England, p. 50.) Just\n  so, the Federal Amendment to the Constitution of the United States\n  relative to prohibition had to be referred to the several states for\n  endorsement before final ratification.\n\nThis, however, raises the question of whether the League should be armed\nwith powers to enforce its decisions. That it should be endowed with a\ndefinite judicial authority goes without saying; but is it to be\nsupported by a police organisation? In the present state of opinion it\nappears likely that some kind of international police force will be\nattached to the League; but there are some reasons for doubting whether\nsuch a provision is necessary or likely to be useful. In this connection\nthe interesting point has been raised that the Constitution of the\nUnited States established a court to adjudicate upon disputes between\nthe States, with no provision of force to compel a State to accept the\nCourt\u2019s decision, but depending upon public opinion alone to validate\nthe judgment. Had there been any attempt on the part of those who framed\nthe Constitution to invest the federal authority with power to coerce a\nrecalcitrant state, it is likely that the Union would never have come\ninto existence; but the Union was founded and survived despite the\nabsence of coercive sanctions, and the venture of faith has been\nvindicated by the growth and unity of the American people.[53] There is\na real danger lest the institution of a police force at the disposal of\nthe League might prove a disruptive factor; and the question should be\ncarefully canvassed before a decision is reached. In any case it is safe\nto say that it should be the business of the League to work towards the\nultimate elimination of coercive sanctions.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  Technically, in the Civil War, force was used to prevent the secession\n  of the South; but what the North really fought for was the abolition\n  of slavery.\n\nBut meantime is there any method by which the League could effectually\ndeal with recalcitrant nations other than direct physical compulsion? A\ngood deal has been said about the use of economic boycott; but it\nrequires some casuistry to distinguish successfully between military\ncoercion and economic boycott. Certainly in intention both devices come\nwithin the same category, and in result they may work out in curiously\nidentical fashion. Constraint by starvation bears in effect a strong\nfamily resemblance to constraint by destructive _force majeure_. At the\nsame time it is evident that a nation which chooses to put itself \u201cin\n_contumaciam_\u201d must in some way or another pay the penalty of its\noffence. The Bank Clearing House deals with an offending and impenitent\nmember by the simple process of exclusion. In the League of Nations, a\nnation in the same position should be dealt with in the same fashion; it\nshould understand that its persistency in the offending attitude carries\nwith it exclusion from the comity of nations. It should, that is, be\ncompelled to accept the responsibility of imposing the punishment upon\nitself. It has put itself outside the pale; and no injustice is involved\nin accepting its deed at its obvious face value and letting it remain\nwhere it has chosen to place itself until such time as it elects to\nthink better of its action. It is doubtful whether any constituent\nnation would think it worth while to indulge in a contumacy which\nautomatically led to excommunication.\n\nIt would take us too far afield from our purpose to discuss the details\nof the organisation required by a League of Nations. Questions of\nconstitution and representation, the problems involved in the adhesion\nto the League of vast composite aggregates like the British Empire, and\nof the place of some of the minute independent states that still remain\nin the world,\u2014these and many more matters will have to be faced in the\ninstitution of the League. Here, however, it has been our business\nmerely to point out that some such device as a League of Peoples is\nentirely necessary to the further development of the democratic\nprinciple, and to pass in brief review certain of the conditions which\nthe League must satisfy, and certain of the functions it must assume, if\nit is to be consistent with and helpful to the realisation of the ideal\nof democracy. A League to enforce peace may be no more than the Holy\nAlliance _redivivus_, an unholy alliance in defence of the _status\nquo_.[54] What is needed is a League to guarantee freedom and to promote\nfellowship, and given such a League peace will largely look after\nitself. It is not sufficiently recognised that to make peace an object\nin itself is to condemn the world to virtual stagnation. The only peace,\nlike the only happiness which is permanent, is that which is a\nbye-product. Permanent peace will come from a voluntary association of\npeoples co-operating on a basis of reciprocity; and such a consummation\nis not so far off as it would at fist sight appear. The reciprocity\nwhich has been established between the Allied peoples in the war will\nhave to be continued long after the war. Their needs are so vast that\nthey will only escape death and want by close co-operation. Moreover,\nthe agreement of the Allies reported in the press as these pages are\nwritten to send food to their late enemies, is an asset of the utmost\nimportance to the creation of the League. And once the League is\nproperly afoot, we may live in the hope of the day which William Blake\nforetold:\n\n               \u201cIn my exchanges, every land shall walk,\n                  And mine in every land;\n                Mutual shall build Jerusalem,\n                  Both heart in heart, and hand in hand.\u201d\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  It is hardly possible to resist the remark at this point that the\n  League as fashioned in Paris bears a strong family likeness to the\n  Holy Alliance, and so far behaves uncommonly like it,\u2014_e.g._, towards\n  Russia and Hungary.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter IX.\n                       EDUCATION INTO DEMOCRACY.\n\n    \u201cEducation teaches in what social welfare consists. It is of first\n    importance to you that your sons should be taught what are the\n    ruling principles and beliefs which guide the lives of their\n    fellowmen in their own times and in their own country; what the\n    moral, social and political programme of their nation is; what the\n    spirit of the legislation by which their deeds will have to be\n    judged; what degree of progress Humanity has already attained and\n    that which it has yet to attain. And it is important to you that\n    they should feel themselves from their earliest years, united in the\n    spirit of equality and of love for a common aim, with the millions\n    of brothers that God has given them.\u201d\u2014MAZZINI.\n\n                                   I\n\n\n\u201cIT was,\u201d says Mr. Benjamin Kidd, \u201cwith a well-founded instinct that\nWilliam II. of Germany, on his accession turned to the elementary school\nteachers of his country when he aimed to impose the elements of a new\nsocial heredity on the whole German people.\u201d It is impossible at this\ntime of day not to go far in agreement with Mr. Kidd when he tells us\nthat it is not so much what is born in a man as what he is born into\nthat shapes his life. The most powerful formative influence in the\nshaping of character and outlook is \u201csocial heredity,\u201d \u201cimposed on the\nyoung at an early age and under conditions of emotion.\u201d[55] This\njudgment is no longer a matter of speculation. Dr. Stanley Hall\u2019s work\nupon the phenomena of adolescence has made it clear that the plastic and\nabsorbent stuff of youth will inevitably take its abiding shape and\ncolour from the cultural setting in which it finds itself. The advocates\nof sectarian education in the famous English controversy about the\nBalfour Acts were, from their own point of view, speaking within the\nuniverse of the soundest possible psychology when they insisted that in\nreligious education \u201catmosphere\u201d was paramount. It was a piece of very\nastute observation on the part of the ancient Jews that led to the\npractice of bringing their twelve-year-old boys to Jerusalem for the\nPassover ceremonies. All the early training was crystallised into a\ndefinite direction of life by the induction of the youth at his most\nsensitive moment into the highly charged emotional atmosphere of the\nHoly City at the great festival of national remembrance and hope. He\nwent there a boy; he returned home a Jew.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  Benjamin Kidd, _The Science of Power_, p. 305.\n\nAgain and again in the course of this examination of the conditions of\ndemocratic evolution, we have had reason to look to education for a\nsolution of many fundamental matters. It is indeed no longer possible to\noverlook the absolute primacy of the school in any progressive\ndemocratic polity; and if the foundations of the coming democratic\ncommonwealth are to be well and truly laid, they must be laid around\nabout the child. Our present purpose does not require that we should\nconsider the actual machinery of the education proper to democratic\ndevelopment\u2014that is a matter for the educator. Our business here and now\nis to consider the broad general characters of such an education.\n\nIt is a commonplace that needs no labouring that modern education\nsuffers many things from the \u201cdead hand.\u201d The tradition of the \u201cgrammar\nschool\u201d which aimed at opening the field of knowledge by a training in\nletters is still with us, despite the fact that we have become\nfamiliarised in recent years with a rounder and fuller conception of\neducation. We have been told again and again that the business of\neducation is to produce good citizens, to promote the growth of moral\ncharacter, and so forth; and slowly this emphasis has made some headway\nin the minds of educational officials. But the whole implication of this\nconception of education is far from being realised, even by those who\nare actively engaged in the work of education. A disproportionate\npre-occupation with \u201cletters\u201d and knowledge still remains to betray our\nbondage to traditional ideas; and this in spite of the fact that popular\neducation has in recent years received a very definite orientation\nthrough the demand for industrial efficiency. But as yet there has not\nbeen\u2014save in the region of what is called \u201ctechnical education\u201d\u2014any\nserious and sustained effort to co-ordinate the whole subject matter of\neducation to this particular end. \u201cTechnical\u201d education appears in the\nscheme not as an integral or organic part of the process as a whole, but\nas a somewhat arbitrary and unrelated annex to the last stage of the\nprocess.\n\nTo this demand that education should minister to industrial efficiency\nwe shall have reason to return presently. Here we are concerned only\nwith the fact that though this demand has been fairly general and\ninsistent, it has not succeeded in shaking the hold of tradition upon\nthe method of the educational process. Popular education still consists\nin the main of variations upon and extensions of the three R\u2019s; and\nthough the experts have discussed widely and in detail the ways and\nmeans of directing the educational processes to given ends, the\nsolutions have not yet arrived in any very substantial way in the\nschools.\n\nRoughly, our popular education is still governed by the idea of\nequipping the young person with such a quantum of knowledge as he may be\nsupposed to require in order to make a living and gain some sort of\nsettled place in life. It has become more and more possible in recent\ntimes for boys and girls who show unusual aptitudes to proceed to the\nhigher branches of learning; but in the main our thought of popular\neducation has been coloured by a pernicious doctrine of \u201cminimums.\u201d We\nhave asked how little education can be given consistently with the need\nof the individual and the society in which he lives; and the opposition\nwhich meets any endeavour to raise the \u201cschool leaving age\u201d proves quite\nconclusively that we have not generally advanced beyond the stage of\nregarding that education as best which is soonest done with. For this\nthe economic strain of life is partly accountable; it is desirable that\nthe boys and girls should be wage-earning as speedily as possible; but\neven more responsible for this state of things is a general ignorance\nconcerning the meaning and purpose of education. Indeed, few of those\nwho are now parents have reason to recall with any profound interest or\ngratitude the days when they were receiving an alleged education.\nSomething in the nature of a systematic campaign of education in the\ninterests of education would seem to be necessary if the popular\nindifference is to be removed to any good purpose.\n\nIt has indeed to be remembered that popular education is still in its\ninfancy; and the prejudice it has to overcome is the result of the\ninevitable failures of its experimental stages. When it is recalled that\nelementary education in England was until 1870 in the hands of voluntary\nagencies, and that only since that date has education become universally\naccessible, it is perhaps remarkable that education should have made as\nmuch headway as it has made; and much of our criticism of current\neducational methods tends to overlook what is under the circumstances\nthe real magnitude of the achievement in education. At the same time it\nis plain that our educational methods are in need of much sustained\nradical criticism if our purposes in education are to be saved from\nmis-carriage.\n\n\n                                   II\n\n\nBut most of all do we require to clear our minds concerning the goal we\nare seeking through education. It is true, as Professor Dewey has\npointed out, that it is not possible to define an end for education; for\nin a profound sense, education has no end. A true education will be that\nwhich fits an individual to go on learning to the end of his life. The\naim of education is more education. At the same time this education will\nnot be for its own sake, or for the learning it helps the scholar to\nacquire. Here again Dr. Dewey helps us by reminding us that one aim of\neducation is social efficiency. Plainly and beyond peradventure no\neducation will serve a democracy which does not produce socially\nefficient persons.\n\nBut this word _efficiency_ has become discredited by its recent use. We\nhave heard something of efficiency engineers who have tried to reduce\nhuman faculty into mathematical formul\u00e6 for the purpose of speeding up\nand suitably supplementing the mechanical processes of industry. It\namounts to no more than a systematic endeavour to fit the human agent to\nthe machine so as to get more out of the machine. The result for the\nlife of the human agent as a whole is hardly taken into account. And\neven if this myth of efficiency engineering has met the fate it\ndeserved, its very appearance and name are symptomatic of the general\ndirection of popular thought upon the main business of a community. Nor\nis this confined to the classes that are interested in getting the\nutmost out of the worker, or to the unreflecting public. The British\nNational Union of Teachers at its Annual Conference in 1916 declared\nthat \u201cthis great war, with its terrible wastage of human life and\nmaterial has brought into bold relief the economic potentialities of the\nchild. As never before, the nation now realises that efficient men and\nwomen are the best permanent capital the state possesses.\u201d[56] So that\nthe business of education is to develop the economic potentialities of\nthe child in order to provide capital for the state. It does not appear\nthat the child has any rights in the matter at all. He is to be trained\nin order to become \u201cthe best permanent capital\u201d of the state. It is to\nbe hoped that two more years of war have brought a more fruitful vision\nto the National Union of Teachers.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  Quoted in the _Public_ (N.Y.), July 6th, 1918.\n\nYet the word _efficiency_ is worth keeping, for it embodies the true\nconception of educational aim so long as it is rightly interpreted; and\nindustrial efficiency must be allowed to enter into our interpretation\nof it. Industrial efficiency gains its preponderant emphasis in recent\ndiscussion because we are still in the toils of the disastrous illusion\nthat the national ideal is national wealth. We think of the nation\u2019s\nwell-being in terms of its financial prosperity; and naturally we tend\nto subordinate all our social processes to this end. But the result of\nthis tendency will be to create not a society, but a wealth-producing\nmachine; and those human possibilities in which the final wealth of life\nlies, will have to fight a doubtful battle for their very existence, and\nat best can gain no more than a precarious foothold in the interstices\nof the money-making organisation.\n\nFrom this bias education must be delivered\u2014at whatever cost; and a\ndoctrine of social efficiency enunciated which will be comprehensive\nenough to satisfy the requirements of the single mind and the social\nwhole at the same time. In point of fact, these requirements are\nvirtually identical, for that which makes a full man makes also for a\nfull fellowship. The individual is to find himself in precisely those\nthings which enable him to contribute his due to society. We need,\ntherefore, to enquire somewhat broadly into the nature of the things in\nwhich the individual shall render his due to the commonality. We shall\nthen be in a position to state in general terms what we should look to\nthe educational process to provide.\n\nProfessor Dewey has laid down in this connection a principle of the\nutmost importance. He affirms that \u201cwe may produce in schools a\nprojection in type of the society we should like to realise.\u201d[57] If we\nare to train the young for social life, the proper method is to surround\nthem in childhood, so far as that may be, with the conditions of the\nideal social life toward which we look. The school should be the\n_societas perfecta_ in miniature. This naturally requires a very\nconsiderable departure in _tone_ from the conditions which still\nprevail. The pontifical and authoritarian tradition of the medi\u00e6val\nschool is still with us; and an attention is devoted to problems of\ndiscipline and order which is disproportionate to the real business of\npreparing for life in a democratic commonwealth, and is to a great\nextent from an angle and in a spirit alien to the purpose in hand. A\nconsiderable breach in this system has already been made by the new\nemphasis upon the value of self-determination in education from the\nearliest stages; but the relaxation of the traditional canons of\ndiscipline does not carry us far enough. Self-determination must be\nrecognised not only as an individual right but as a group\nresponsibility; and the practice of popular self-government should begin\nin the schools. It is symptomatic of the present tendency among\neducators of a liberal and radical type that in the prospectus of a\nschool soon to be established, it is laid down that the internal\ngovernment \u201cshall be increasingly democratic, scholars and teachers\nsharing both legislation and administration,\u201d and that the external\ngovernment shall be vested in a council, representing the trustees, the\nfaculty and the scholars. This is a sane and fruitful method of\ninitiating boys and girls into the larger responsibilities of social\nlife. Already the plan has been adopted in some existing schools with a\nconsiderable measure of success; and if the school is to be the organ of\na genuine training in social efficiency, we need a wide extension of\nthis method.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  _Democracy and Education_, p. 370.\n\nBut beyond this discipline in self-government, the school has to\nundertake the fitting of the child for other kinds of social\ncontribution.\n\n(_a_) He must be trained to contribute his share to the supply of the\nphysical needs of the community. Obviously, in a school, the direct and\ncomplete application of this principle is impossible. It is laid down in\nthe prospectus before referred to that \u201call must share, teacher and\nscholar alike, in the labour that lies at the basis of human life and\nunites all men through their common need\u201d; and it is ordained that \u201cthe\nkitchen, the crafts-room and the garden shall rank equally with the\nclassroom.\u201d It is proposed to give the scholars \u201cdirect experience of\nagricultural processes and the preparation of the main articles of food,\nspinning, weaving, dyeing, sewing, carpentry, building, pottery,\nprinting and any other crafts directly contributing to the life of the\ncommunity.\u201d Naturally, no child is required to become expert in all\nthese occupations; but his training in them will presently serve to\nreveal his special aptitudes and to determine his own personal choice.\n\nIt is not contemplated in this particular experiment that machinery will\nbe introduced to any considerable extent; and while it is stated that\nmachinery will not be excluded, it is obvious that it is regarded with\nsome dubiety, if not hostility. But it is necessary to accept the\nposition that the machine industry is here with us and is here to stay;\nand a proper perception of its true function will save us from assuming\na fallacious attitude in regard to it. While the incentive to the\ndevelopment and improvement of large scale mechanical processes has been\nthe pursuit of profit, the real office of these processes is to diminish\nthe purely mechanical and menial operations which are necessary to life,\nand consequently to release a larger volume of human energy for tasks of\na more independent and creative nature. There are certain necessities of\nlife concerning which our requirements are that they should be good in\nquality and abundant in quantity\u2014and as no question but of utility\narises in relation to them, they may be assigned to the large-scale\nmachine industry. This, however, does not in the least absolve us from\nincluding in our school curriculum a provision for the habituation of\nchildren to mechanical processes of this kind. But because these\nprocesses are necessarily monotonous and irksome, every effort should be\nmade to introduce into them what elements of interest may be attached to\nthem; and to reduce to the lowest possible point the current tendency to\nmake the worker a mere accessory of the machine.\n\nMiss Helen Marot has recently described proposals for an educational\nexperiment which aims at the association of discipline in industrial\nproduction with the educational process. This particular experiment\ntakes the form of producing wooden toys; and while, as Miss Marot sees,\nthe production of toys has anyhow an intrinsic interest, the details\nwhich are given show how radically the atmosphere of the machine\nindustry might be changed by giving it a place in the school curriculum.\nMiss Marot\u2019s assumption that the machine industry can be so transformed\nby democratic control as to satisfy the creative instinct has already\nbeen adversely criticised in these pages; but the present discussion is\nnot affected by criticism of that particular point. What it is to our\npurpose to observe is that mechanical processes may be relieved of some\nof their present irksomeness by supplying them with their appropriate\nbackground. First of all, it is necessary that the worker should be\nacquainted with the whole process of manufacture in order that he may\nparticipate in his own special task with a measure of intelligent\ninterest; and this will involve a degree of familiarity with the\ntechnical problems of management, with accounting and costing, with the\ninternal conditions of the industry and the plant, and with the larger\neconomics of the enterprise. But in addition to all this more immediate\nbusiness of habituation to routine, provision is made for the\ndevelopment of artistic judgment and execution and for the acquisition\nof knowledge relating to the craft itself\u2014consisting in this case of\n\u201cauthentic accounts and inspirational stories of industrial life,\nespecially of the lumber, wood-working and the toy industry.\u201d\n\nObviously not all trades command the interest which can be created\naround toy-making. In the manufacture of articles of utility which are\nproduced by processes of a highly standardised kind, it would be less\neasy to introduce elements of romance and sentiment. Still much can and\nshould be done in every trade; and admission to any particular trade\nshould be preceded by some discipline of this kind. If ever industry is\norganised on the basis of national Guilds, surely one function of the\nGuilds will be to establish national trade schools in which a generous\ntraining of this kind can be given and which shall be closely\nco-ordinated to the entire scheme of public education.\n\n\n                                  III\n\n\nBut it cannot be too frequently emphasised that we are not to accept the\npresent subordination of social life to the exigencies of the machine\nindustry. That the machine industry is here to stay need not be argued;\nand we may dismiss as impracticable the suggestion of a return to the\nhandicraft system. The machine industry must be retained for the\nproduction of utilities where no question of beauty or ornament arises;\nand it should be so ordered as to reduce the purely mechanical\noperations entailed in the manufacture of the staple commodities to a\nminimum. Consequently care should always be had to prevent an\nexaggerated emphasis upon the place of the machine industry in\neducation. It is not to be pretended that mechanical processes can ever\nin themselves minister substantially to the joy of life. The best that\ncan be said is that their present disadvantages can be materially\nreduced; but not even the sense of partnership and democratic control,\nthe shortening of hours and the addition of intellectual interest, taken\nall together, can turn factory life into \u201ca thing of beauty and a joy\nfor ever.\u201d\n\nSome emphasis has already been laid upon the difference between\nproductive and creative activity. Creation is not merely production, but\nreproduction, that is to say, the activity in which we express\n_ourselves_ for the joy of the thing itself. The present writer was\nbrought up in a slate-quarrying town in North Wales. The workers spent\ntheir time in mining and dressing roofing-slates\u2014an industry which\ninvolves no special skill save only in the department of\nslate-splitting. This is handwork and no satisfactory mechanical\nsubstitute for it has yet been contrived; and there is much emulation\namong the workers in this process. Apart from this there is nothing\nnote-worthy about the industry except the very considerable extent of\npartnership which prevails (or used to prevail) in the work itself and\nof fellowship in the dressing shops. But after the day\u2019s work was done\nthere was a somewhat remarkable activity of another kind. Sometimes a\nworker would take a piece of raw slate home with him and spend his spare\ntime in turning it into candlesticks or some other article by means of a\nlathe or by direct manual work. The result from an artistic standpoint\nwas doubtless very crude; but it was interesting and instructive to\nobserve the almost instinctive way in which men, released from necessary\ntoil, turned to the production of things of beauty. This free\nself-expression took other forms in other men. Welsh quarrymen have\nalways been well-known for their literary tastes; and the town contained\na considerable number of quite capable writers of both prose and verse\nin the Welsh language. Others there were\u2014and these were a large\nnumber\u2014whose dispositions were musical; and since the purchase of\nmusical instruments was as a rule beyond these men\u2019s pockets, they\ndevoted themselves to vocal music. The congregational singing in the\nchurches was famous throughout the country; and while there were many\nindividual vocalists and composers of considerable merit, the\ndevelopment of choral singing reached an extremely high point. It was an\nintensely religious community and was full of religious activities of\nmany kinds. It was perfectly plain that the real business and joy of\nlife lay not in the production of roofing-slates but in the exercises of\ncreative self-expression to which the men appeared to turn naturally and\ninstinctively when the business of making a livelihood was over.\n\nThis is a parable for the educator. While the business of producing the\nnecessities of life should be so conceived and ordered as to make\nparticipation in it as much a pleasure as a duty, it is not to be\ngainsaid that the joy and the ultimate wealth of life lies in the free\nand self-directed activity of self-expression whether by the individual\nhimself or in some free concert with his neighbours. Education for life\nwill necessarily take account of this circumstance\u2014not only because it\nprovides a means of personal satisfaction but also because it might, and\nproperly developed would, become the chief and the most characteristic\ncontribution of the individual to the life and growth of the community.\nThe school must therefore provide opportunity of independent personal\nself-expression\u2014in every manner of medium\u2014in order that the peculiar\ncreative aptitude of each child may be discovered and encouraged.\nWhether it be wood-carving or verse-writing, pattern-designing or\nviolin-playing, any education that pretends to fit a child for a vital\nsocial service must make room for it.\n\nIt is in this region that we are to look for the differentiation of\nfuture social function according to particular aptitudes. To-day,\neducation reproduces the traditional social schism between the\nprivileged and the disinherited classes. On the one hand, we have\nschools and universities which aim to provide a culture appropriate to\nthose who have to assume the business of leadership and government in\nthe community; on the other we have a popular education which appears in\nthe main to aim at providing a docile mass amenable to leadership and\ngovernment. There is virtually no attempt to sift out of the mass those\nwho have aptitudes for special social tasks or genius for any form of\nartistic production. Its methods\u2014mitigated only by the vagaries of the\npersonal equation\u2014are calculated to turn out human products having the\nuniformity of a sheet of postage stamps. This method can have no result\nbut that of producing and perpetuating a general spiritual poverty. In a\ndemocratic community it should be intolerable that schools for children\nshould exist other than the common school. The common school being what\nit is, it is not surprising that there should be a demand for schools\nthat give a better chance to the human material of boys and girls. This,\nhowever, tends to stereotype a class-distinction; and for that reason to\nlimit the field in which the talent for public leadership and artistic\nand political genius might be discovered. In the common school there\nshould be provision and encouragement for the exercise of free and\noriginal self-expression in every possible way so that each child may be\nenabled to discover its own peculiar vocation in the commonwealth. Not\nevery child will reveal a faculty for creative self-expression of a high\norder; but every child should have the chance of doing so. And it is the\nonly safe assumption on which to proceed that every child has in it the\nlatent capacity for making a unique and original personal contribution\nto the total life and wealth and beauty of the community. The common\nschool should become the mine out of which we dig the raw material of\nour poets, whether minor or major, our singers, our sculptors, our\nfabricators of beautiful garments, our painters of pictures, our\norators, our thinkers and our house-decorators; and there is an untold\nwealth of this raw material which is lost to society all the time under\nthe conditions of our present preoccupation with the making of money. It\nwould be stupid to suppose that every child can become a great artist;\nbut some kind of artist in some kind of medium every child should have\nthe opportunity of becoming, on the assumption that here\u2014in this region\nof creative self-expression\u2014lies the richest contribution he can make to\nthe common life.\n\n\n                                   IV\n\n\nBut the democratic principle further requires the intelligent\nco-operation of persons in the conduct of affairs; and it is the part of\nthe common school to furnish the necessary equipment of this\npartnership. In this equipment there are two main elements. The first is\nthe provision of adequate capital of information for the stimulation and\ndirection of thought; the second is the encouragement of independent and\noriginal thought.\n\nThere is a certain body of knowledge which it is essential that the\nchild should have if he is to think rightly and to order his conduct\naccordingly. This body of knowledge may be roughly described as\nknowledge of the world in which we live; and its two chief parts have\nreference to the world as it now is, and to the story of how it came to\nbe what it is. The former involves observation and interpretation of the\nactual conditions of the life in which the child lives; and the process\nshould begin where the child stands. In the modern teaching of\ngeography, the beginning is made in school-yard or the precinct and from\nthis centre it broadens out to cover one\u2019s city, one\u2019s county, one\u2019s\nstate or province, one\u2019s country, until at last it embraces the round\nearth. This is as it should be. In the past the teaching of geography\nhas been a mere imparting of a mass of facts, which have seemed to\npossess no direct relation to life; by making the child\u2019s own location a\nfocus round about which the available and necessary knowledge of the\nworld can be gathered in a more or less coherent fashion, the relation\nof facts, which in themselves might seem remote and irrelevant to the\nbusiness of life, becomes more evident, and the entire study gains a new\nvitality. This discussion is now trenching dangerously upon the province\nof educational theory; but it is needful to emphasise how indispensable\nit is that knowledge should not be, as it has so often been, allowed to\nappear unconnected with the actual business of living in this world.\nEven yet one may hear children asking in a bewildered way\u2014\u201cWhat on earth\nis the use of my learning the height of Popocatapetl?\u201d Or \u201cwhat good is\nit to know the length of the Yang-Tse-Kiang?\u201d Information of this kind\nhas no doubt a certain fascination for some types of mind; but it may be\nleft for those minds to seek it out for themselves. The business of the\nschool is to make possible the acquisition of the knowledge which bears\nupon the contribution which the pupil is expected to make to the\ncommunity. This is not to say that there is not knowledge which is\ndesirable for its own sake, or that the love of knowledge should not be\nencouraged for what it brings. Moreover, soon or late all knowledge will\npossess a social value. But the knowledge which is most valuable is that\nwhich the individual acquires for himself; and the responsibility of the\nschool in this matter is to release and quicken the capacity for\nindependent and continuous acquisition of knowledge. But this\n_desideratum_ is not in the least compromised or neglected by ordering\nthe acquisition of knowledge in the first instance with reference to the\nactual business of social life.\n\nIt is the business of the educator to determine what the subject-matter\nof the curriculum must be in order to give the pupil adequate knowledge\nof the world in which he has to live; it is our business here simply to\nstress the point that this knowledge shall be of a relevant and vital\nkind. It should have to do not only with the physical features of the\nworld, but with social and political institutions and the like; and\nindeed throughout it should have more to say about the ways than about\nthe places in which people live. But chiefly this aspect of the\neducational process should aim to equip the pupil with the necessary\nknowledge to enable him to acquire more knowledge through his own direct\nexperience of the world.\n\nBut this knowledge of the world as it is would be hopelessly inadequate\nwere it not connected with some knowledge of how the world came to be\nwhat it is. Here again the subject-matter must be defined by the\nexperience of the educator. The business of this writing is to emphasise\nthe requirement that this knowledge of the past shall be ordered\nconformably to the ultimate social fruitfulness of the pupil. In his\nboyhood the present writer was required to study geology\u2014at first sight\na somewhat irrelevant subject for a lad in his early teens. But he\nhappened to live in a district where slate-quarrying was the only\nindustry; and when he learnt that his bread and butter came from the\n\u201cLlandeilo Beds\u201d; and that these same \u201cbeds\u201d occupied a specific place\nin a more or less orderly process of world-making, the study of geology\nassumed a new interest. But its most important action was the awakening\nof a dim sense of being an \u201cheir of all the ages.\u201d This feeling received\na very powerful reinforcement from another side. The writer well\nremembers his first reading of the story of the Pilgrim Fathers.\nHitherto history had seemed to consist mainly of the puerile and\ndiscreditable exploits of a succession of royal persons of whom none\nwere better than they should be; and he had wondered what on earth all\nthis had to do with a boy living among the Welsh mountains in the\nnineteenth century. But the Pilgrims Fathers were different; here at\nlast was something that seemed to have a meaning, and it is easy to see\nwhat that meaning would be to a lad whose upbringing had been in a\nStrong Nonconformist tradition. It took long years to fill with a\nconnected content the interval between the sailing of the _Mayflower_\nand the campaign for the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in\nWales; but from henceforth the lad knew that he stood in the succession\nof a tradition that had made a difference to the world and that he owed\na very great deal to it.\n\nThe story of how we have come by our inheritance of freedom, of the\nage-long upward struggle of mankind, this above all should furnish the\ninspiration and the guidance for our service of the present. For this\nreason, emphasis should be laid upon the history of peoples rather than\nof states, upon the movement of social life rather than upon historical\nbiography. It seems hardly credible but it is strictly true that the\npresent writer left school without ever having heard of the Craft Guilds\nof the Middle ages; or of the great tradition of ecclesiastical\narchitecture which enters so organically into the story of social\ndevelopment in England. He had heard in a somewhat casual manner of Wat\nTyler and John Ball, and of other incidents which disturbed the normal\nflow of royal intrigue and adventure; but of the story of the common\npeople he knew virtually nothing at all. Yet after all that is the\nhistory that chiefly matters; and much has yet to be done to give it its\nproper place in the school curriculum.\n\nWhatever the subject-matter, its arrangement and presentation should be\nso ordered as to inspire and enable the child to make a willing and\nworthy contribution to the life of his community. But the social\nemphasis in education, if it is to be true to itself and indeed to the\ngeneral history of mankind, must define society in wider terms than that\nof the immediate community. Mr. Wells has told us that mankind has been\nforever \u201cpursuing the frontiers of its possible community.\u201d Whether by\nrevolution within the commonwealth, by imperial expansion or by fusion\nwith other commonwealths, there has been an abiding impulse\u2014erratic and\noften perverse in its operations\u2014to broaden the basis of human\nfellowship. And in the present position of the world, there is nothing\nso urgent as to quicken a social sympathy wide enough to embrace the\nworld. It is peculiarly the function of geography and history to serve\nthis purpose. Geography should assume that frontiers are the lines at\nwhich peoples meet rather than part; and history should lay stress upon\nthe forces that have made for human unity rather than for national\npower. If the writer may be permitted to indulge in a last personal\nreminiscence, the tendency in the teaching of history in the past may be\nillustrated by the fact that the outstanding impression left upon him by\nthe school history was that the French were the hereditary enemies of\nthe British; and it is something to the point to observe that the text\nbooks of American history have in the past failed to lay proper emphasis\nupon the circumstance that during the Revolutionary War the best mind of\nEngland was on the side of the colonists. The gratuitous and\nunhistorical prejudice which the traditional attitude in school history\nhas bred is not a little accountable for the divisive tempers that have\nled to wars. To-day the shrinkage of the world has made this attitude\nmore than ever disastrous; and in view of our hope of a League of\nNations it is essential that geography and history in particular should\nbe treated as the opportunity for a general expansion of social\nsympathy.\n\n\n                                   V\n\n\nIt is hardly necessary to point out that the conception of history which\nis pleaded for here includes the history of thought, of art, and of\nreligion; and that so far as is possible, this history should be learnt\nby direct recourse to its sources in the classic literature and art of\nthe past. But generous and comprehensive as the provision for acquiring\nknowledge should be, the educational process has not finished its\nbusiness until it has habituated the youth to the task of using this\nknowledge as the basis and material of independent thought. Democracy\nfaces no greater danger than the inability of the people to exercise a\ncritical judgment upon the voices that clamour for their suffrages; and\nthe experiences of war-time have shown that freedom is not inconsistent\nwith a very dangerous unreflective docility on the part of the public.\nThis danger is the greater when the staple of a people\u2019s reading is the\ndaily press, which envelops men in the tumult and the clangour of\npassing events without providing them with the longer perspective\nnecessary to a valid judgment. The power of the demagogue and the\ntyranny of the press are to be mitigated only by an educational process\nwhich does two things\u2014first of all, provides a background of general\nknowledge and interest, and second, turns out individuals able and\naccustomed to think for themselves. And just because the life of\ndemocracy requires free discussion, the school curriculum should contain\nstated provision for the discussion of current matters, which would turn\nout to be a powerful stimulant of independent thought, especially in its\ncritical aspects. The more constructive and sustained elements in\nindependent thought may be encouraged by a careful development of the\ntime-honoured method of the essay. But whatever the precise methods may\nbe, the aim must be the systematic encouragement of the habit of\nindependent thought; and in this connection, with proper safeguards\nagainst putting a premium on \u201ccussedness,\u201d it is important that\ndissenting and minority opinions, which whether right or wrong contain\nsome guarantee of independence, should be welcomed and valued as the\npromise of ultimate social usefulness.\n\n\n                                   VI\n\n\nImportant as the materials and methods of education are, we cannot\nafford to forget that there are two other elements of our problem,\nclosely related to one another, which are in the end of greater\nimportance. The first of these is the teacher. It is not a gratuitous\nslander upon the general body of teachers to say that the whole method\nof recruiting teachers and the conditions of the teaching profession\ntend to degrade teaching into a trade. A great deal needs to be done to\nexalt the teacher\u2019s office in the public mind; and the teaching\nprofession should be so honoured as to give it the first call upon the\nhuman material in the community. As things are, it is far too much\nregarded as a means of livelihood, comparatively easily qualified for,\nand tolerably well remunerated; and the training required for admission\ninto the profession is quite inadequate. If only teaching were rightly\nesteemed and its practitioners held in such honour as even judges, who\ndo a much inferior work, are held, it would be possible to exercise a\nfar more careful selection of persons suited by their temperamental and\nmoral characters for the work. For we have to look for something\ninfinitely greater than the successful communication of knowledge, or\nthe training of mental faculties. Robert Owen followed an essentially\nsound instinct when, having established a school for infants in New\nLanark he put at the head of it a man who could neither read or write,\nbut who was familiar with birds and flowers and had \u201ca way with him.\u201d\nRobert Louis Stevenson, writing of Wordsworth, says, \u201cI do not know that\nyou learn a lesson. You need not agree with any of his beliefs; and yet\na spell is cast. Such are the best teachers. A dogma learned is only a\nnew error, the old one was perhaps as good. But a spirit communicated is\na perpetual possession. These best teachers climb beyond teaching to the\nplane of art; it is themselves and what is best in themselves that they\ncommunicate.\u201d It was said during the education controversy in England\nthat some teachers taught more religion in an hour\u2019s arithmetic lesson\nthan others did in a year of \u201creligious instruction,\u201d and the saying is\ntrue. It is the spirit communicated that makes the difference between a\nreal and a spurious education.\n\nEspecially is this the case when we consider the business of education\nfrom the point of view of social efficiency. For the prerequisite of\nsocial efficiency is social vision, social passion; and this is\nsupremely a matter of contagion. For this reason, the true type of\nteacher will be devoid of the pontifical, _ex-cathedra_ temper and will\nrather seek out a relation of comradeship with his pupils. The form of a\ndemocratic education will be essentially co-operative; and its spirit\nwill be that of fellowship. This brings us to the second outstanding\npoint of our discussion, namely, the question of \u201catmosphere.\u201d Upon this\nsubject there is little more to be said than what is contained in\nProfessor Dewey\u2019s dictum that the school should so far as possible be a\nminiature of the society we desire to create. The creation of\n\u201catmosphere\u201d is of course specifically the task of the faculty; and the\neagerness and the enthusiasm of their participation in the more informal\namenities of school life is an important factor in the process. But most\nof all is a genuine social passion in themselves the surest guarantee\nthat they will help in the making of socially creative and effective\npersons.\n\nMuch is being said at the present time concerning the introduction of\nmilitary training into schools. It is worth notice in passing that Mr.\nFisher, the British Minister of Education, recently informed a\ndeputation of miners that the government had canvassed the question and\nhad decided that the innovation had neither educational nor military\nvalue and would not be adopted. It is no doubt true that military\ntraining would have a beneficial effect upon the physique of the boys;\nbut, quite apart from its dubious value for education and any subsequent\npurpose, it must be observed that the genius of the military business is\nintrinsically hostile to the development of the democratic ideals. For\nthe military organisation is a regimentation of men for power; it\nentails the mechanisation of the human material and imposes a discipline\nof uniformity upon those who are subject to it. Democratic education has\nto do with life, and its genius moves in the direction of the largest\npossible spontaneity and variation in the individuals with whom it has\nto do. Moreover, military discipline introduces the authoritarian temper\ninto the atmosphere; and this is a temper altogether at variance with\nthe spirit of frank comradeship in which a democratic education should\nbe pursued. What advantages may accrue to the future in the shape of\nimproved physical health and strength in the community is more than\ncounter-balanced by the injection of an undemocratic virus into the\nminds of those who are called to sustain the democracy of the future.\n\nNor is it impossible to compensate ourselves for the loss of physical\ntraining consequent upon the rejection of military training. For there\nare other ways of providing for physical efficiency; and those other\nways are more consistent with the aim of a democratic education. In the\nsports field, for instance, you have at once an instrument of physical\ntraining as well as a definite education in a team work, which does not\ndepend upon uniform and synchronous movements commanded from without,\nbut upon the intelligence and dexterity of the players themselves.\nMoreover, the sports field affords an illustration of the proper use of\nthe competitive spirit. The military discipline has its eye upon\npotential enemies to be destroyed; the sports discipline has its eye\nupon rival teams of friends and thus always a cheer for the beaten team\nin the end. It has been observed that the difference in temper between\nthe behaviour of the German and the English soldier was to be traced to\nthe fact that the football field had played a large part in the training\nof the latter; and it is not unlikely that even the superior military\nefficiency of the English soldier in the latter stages of the war has to\nbe attributed to the same circumstance. In any case, sportsmanship is\nnearer akin to the spirit of democracy than the military discipline.\n\nA plea has been made for military training on the ground that the rhythm\nof its movements has a certain psychological value. That the place of\nrhythm in education has been neglected is indeed true; and there is\nlittle doubt that a more sustained attention to it would add much to\nphysical grace and the joy and beauty of life. The question, however,\nremains whether the military rhythm which rests upon a principle of\nregularity is likely to have the psychological effects proper to such\neducation as these pages contemplate. The rhythm of the folk-dance like\nthe rhythm of the ballad is a far more accurate version of the rhythm\nwhich is natural to men and women; and the rhythm of Walt Whitman, which\nis of the same order, reflects the genuine rhythm of democracy. The\nEurhythmics of Dalcroze, because they encourage a spontaneous\nself-expression through the free rhythmical movement of the body promise\nmore for the future grace and beauty of democratic life than a military\ndiscipline can from its very nature do.\n\n\n                                  VII\n\n\nThe sum of the matter then is this, that the test of a true democratic\neducation lies in the quality and power of the social vision it evokes\nin the growing child, in the measure of power and capacity it gives to\nthe child to share in the realisation of the vision, and in this sharing\nto give to the child the inspiring and joyous promise of personal\nself-fulfilment. Here we have tried only to sketch in very rough and\nfragmentary outline what would appear to be the temper and the general\nconfiguration of such an educational process; and much has been omitted\nwhich naturally belongs to a full discussion of the subject. Of the\nplace of dramatic and symbolic activities in education, generous notice\nshould be taken in any extended treatment, for it is obvious, first of\nall that the dramatic and the symbolic make a peculiar appeal to the\nchild, and second, that the social enthusiasm which it is our desire to\nquicken can be quickened more effectively in no other way. There is one\npoint, however, upon which it might serve an immediate purpose to dwell.\nThe graduation ceremony in an American school provides a fitting close\nto a school career; it rounds it off with dignity and solemnity. But\nsomething more than this should be done\u2014whether on leaving school or\ncollege or trade school\u2014in order to impress upon the individual that he\nis passing into another world demanding other and more responsible\nservice. Some solemn ceremonial of initiation into the rights and\nresponsibilities of citizenship, accompanied by every circumstance of\ngravity and reverence, should furnish the fitting close to the period of\ntraining. At present we slip out into the business of life in a ragged\ninsignificant way. Our entry upon responsible citizenship should be\nsignalised by a great public observance which should serve the purpose\nnot only of launching the youth upon his course in life, but also of\nreminding the rest of the community of its vows and its obligations to\nthe common life.[58]\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  This discussion closes without any attempt to deal with the problem of\n  education beyond the school age. The office of the University in\n  democratic development is obviously large and important; but here\n  again the writer confesses his inability to handle the subject\n  adequately with any degree of confidence. Valuable suggestions\n  concerning the social ministry of the University may be found in _The\n  Coming Polity_, by Patrick Geddes and Victor Branford, especially in\n  the chapter on \u201cThe University Militant.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                             --------------\n\n        HEADLEY BROS., ASHFORD, KENT & 18 DEVONSHIRE ST., E.C.2.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.\n    \u25cb Typographical errors were silently corrected.\n    \u25cb Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only\n      when a predominant form was found in this book.\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).","title":"The Unfinished Programme of Democracy","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":79203}