WHAT SOCIALISM IS
To those who are writing about such things as _Socialism_ or Political
Economy, one of the stumbling-blocks is in the hard or uncommon words,
and another in the tediousness--the "dryness"--of the arguments and
explanations.
It is not easy to say what has to be said so that anybody may see quite
clearly what is meant, and it is still harder to say it so as to hold
the attention and arouse the interest of men and women who are not used
to reading or thinking about matters outside the daily round of their
work and their play. As I want this book to be plain to all kinds of
workers, even to those who have no "book-learning" and to whom a "hard
word" is a "boggart," and a "dry" description or a long argument a
weariness of the flesh, I must beg those of you who are more used to
bookish talk and scientific terms (or names) to bear with me when I stop
to show the meaning of things that to you are quite clear.
If I can make my meaning plain to members of Parliament, bishops,
editors, and other half-educated persons, and to labouring men and women
who have had but little schooling, and have never been used to think or
care about _Socialism_, or Economics, or Politics, or "any such dry
rot"--as they would call them--if I can catch the ear of the heedless
and the untaught, the rest of you cannot fail to follow.
The terms, or names, used in speaking of Socialism--that is to say, the
names given to ideas, or "thoughts," or to kinds of ideas, or "schools"
of thought, are not easy to put into the plain words of common speech.
To an untaught labourer _Socialism_ is a hard word, so is
_Co-operation_; and such a phrase, or name, as _Political Economy_ is
enough to clear a taproom, or break up a meeting, or close a book.
So I want to steer clear of "hard words," and "dry talk," and
long-windedness, and I want to tell my tale, if I can, in "tinker's
English."
_What is Socialism?_
There is more than one kind of _Socialism_, for we hear of State
_Socialism_, of Practical _Socialism_, of Communal _Socialism_; and
these kinds differ from each other, though they are all _Socialism_.
So you have different kinds of Liberals. There are old-school Whigs, and
advanced Whigs, and Liberals, and Radicals, and advanced Radicals; but
they are all _Liberals_.
So you have horse soldiers, foot soldiers, riflemen, artillery, and
engineers; but they are all _soldiers_.
Amongst the Liberals are men of many minds: there are Churchmen,
Nonconformists, Atheists; there are teetotalers and there are drinkers;
there are Trade Union leaders, and there are leaders of the Masters'
Federation. These men differ on many points, but they all agree upon
_one_ point.
Amongst the Socialists are many men of many minds: there are parsons,
atheists, labourers, employers, men of peace, and men of force. These
men differ on many points, but they all agree upon _one_ point.
Now, this point on which men of different views agree is called a
_principle_.
A principle is a main idea, or main thought. It is like the keelson of a
ship or the backbone of a fish--it is the foundation on which the thing
is built.
Thus, the _principle_ of Trade Unionism is "combination," the combining,
or joining together, of a number of workers, for the general good of
all.
The _principle_ of Democratic (or Popular) Government is the law that
the will of the majority shall rule.
Do away with the "right of combination," and Trade Unionism is
destroyed.
Do away with majority rule, and Popular Government is destroyed.
So if we can find the _principle_ of _Socialism_, if we can find the
one point on which all kinds of Socialists agree, we shall be able to
see what _Socialism_ really is.
Now, here in plain words is the _principle_, or root idea, on which
_all_ Socialists agree--
That the country, and all the machinery of production in the country,
shall belong to the whole people (the nation), and shall be used _by_
the people and _for_ the people.
That "principle," the root idea of Socialism, means two things--
1. That the land and all the machines, tools, and buildings used in
making needful things, together with all the canals, rivers, roads,
railways, ships, and trains used in moving, sharing (distributing)
needful things, and all the shops, markets, scales, weights, and
money used in selling or dividing needful things, shall be the
property of (belong to) the whole people (the nation).
2. That the land, tools, machines, trains, rivers, shops, scales,
money, and all the other things belonging to the people, shall be
worked, managed, divided, and used by the whole people in such a way
as the greater number of the whole people shall deem best.
This is the principle of collective, or national, ownership, and
co-operative, or national, use and control.
Socialism may, you see, be summed up in one line, in four words, as
really meaning
BRITAIN FOR THE BRITISH.
I will make all this as plain as the nose on your face directly. Let us
now look at the _other_ side.
To-day Britain does _not_ belong to the British; it belongs to a few of
the British. There are bits of it which belong to the whole people, as
Wimbledon Common, Portland Gaol, the highroads; but most of it is
"private property."
Now, as there are Liberals and Tories, Catholics and Protestants,
Dockers' Unions and Shipping Federations in England; so there are
Socialists and non-Socialists.
And as there are different kinds of Socialists, so there are different
kinds of non-Socialists.
As there is one point, or _principle_, on which all kinds of Socialists
agree; so there is one point, or _principle_, on which all kinds of
non-Socialists agree.
Amongst the non-Socialists there are Liberals and Tories, Catholics and
Protestants, masters and workmen, rich and poor, lords and labourers,
publicans and teetotalers; and these folks, as you know, differ in their
ideas, and quarrel with and go against each other; but they are all
non-Socialists, they are all against _Socialism_, and they all agree
upon _one point_.
So, if we can find the one point on which all kinds of non-Socialists
agree, we shall find the _principle_, or root idea, of non-Socialism.
Well, the "principle" of non-Socialism is just the opposite of the
"principle" of _Socialism_. As the "principle" of _Socialism_ is
national ownership, so the "principle" of non-Socialism is _private_
ownership. As the principle of _Socialism_ is _Britain for the British_,
so the principle of non-Socialism is _Every Briton for Himself_.
Again, as the principle of _Socialism_ means two things, so does the
principle of non-Socialism mean two things.
As the principle of _Socialism_ means national ownership and
co-operative national management, so the principle of non-Socialism
means _private ownership_ and _private management_.
_Socialism_ says that Britain shall be owned and managed _by_ the people
_for_ the people.
Non-Socialism says Britain shall be owned and managed _by_ some persons
_for_ some persons.
Under _Socialism_ you would have _all_ the people working _together_ for
the good of _all_.
Under non-Socialism you have all the _persons_ working _separately_ (and
mostly _against_ each other), each for the good of _himself_.
So we find _Socialism_ means _Co-operation_, and non-Socialism means
_Competition_.
Co-operation, as here used, means operating or working together for a
common end or purpose.
Competition means competing or vying with each other for personal ends
or gain.
I'm afraid that is all as "dry" as bran, and as sad as a half-boiled
dumpling; but I want to make it quite plain.
And now we will run over it all again in a more homely and lively way.
You know that to-day most of the land in Britain belongs to landlords,
who let it to farmers or builders, and charge _rent_ for it.
Socialists (_all_ Socialists) say that _all_ the land should belong to
the British people, to the nation.
You know that the railways belong to railway companies, who carry goods
and passengers, and charge fares and rates, to make _profit_.
Socialists _all_ say that the railways should be bought by the people.
Some say that fares should be charged, some that the railways should be
free--just as the roads, rivers, and bridges now are; but all agree that
any profit made by the railways should belong to the whole nation. Just
as do the profits now made by the post office and the telegraphs.
You know that cotton mills, coalmines, and breweries now belong to rich
men, or to companies, who sell the coal, the calico, or the beer, for
profit.
Socialists say that all mines, mills, breweries, shops, works, ships,
and farms should belong to the whole people, and should be managed by
persons chosen by the people, or chosen by officials elected by the
people, and that all the bread, beer, calico, coal, and other goods
should be either _sold_ to the people, or _given_ to the people, or sold
to foreign buyers for the benefit of the British nation.
Some Socialists would _give_ the goods to the people, some would _sell_
them; but _all_ agree that any profit on such sales should belong to the
whole people--just as any profit made on the sale of gas by the
Manchester Corporation goes to the credit of the city.
Now you will begin to see what is meant by Socialism.
To-day the nation owns _some_ things; under Socialism the nation would
own _all_ things.
To-day the nation owns the ships of the navy, the forts, arsenals,
public buildings, Government factories, and some other things.
To-day the Government, _for the nation_, manages the post office and
telegraphs, makes some of the clothes and food and arms for the army and
navy, builds some of the warships, and oversees the Church, the prisons,
and the schools.
Socialists want the nation to own _all_ the buildings, factories, lands,
rivers, ships, schools, machines, and goods, and to manage _all_ their
business and work, and to buy and sell and make and use _all_ goods for
themselves.
To-day some cities (as Manchester and Glasgow) make gas, and supply gas
and water to the citizens. Some cities (as London) let their citizens
buy their gas and water from gas and water companies.
Socialists want _all_ the gas and water to be supplied to the people by
their own officials, as in Glasgow and Manchester.
Under _Socialism_ all the work of the nation would be _organised_--that
is to say, it would be "ordered," or "arranged," so that no one need be
out of work, and so that no useless work need be done, and so that no
work need be done twice where once would serve.
At present the work is _not_ organised, except in the post office and in
the various works of the Corporations.
Let us take a look at the state of things in England to-day.
To-day the industries of England are not ordered nor arranged, but are
left to be disordered by chance and by the ups and downs of trade.
So we have at one and the same time, and in one and the same trade, and,
often enough, in one and the same town, some men working overtime and
other men out of work.
We have at one time the cotton mills making more goods than they can
sell, and at another time we have them unable to fulfil their orders.
We have in one street a dozen small shops all selling the same kind of
goods, and so spending in rent, in fittings, in wages of servants, and
other ways, about four times as much as would be spent if all the work
were done in one big shop.
We have one contractor sending men and tools and bricks and wood from
north London to build a house in south London, and another contractor in
south London going to the same trouble and expense to build a house in
north London.
We have in Essex and other parts of England thousands of acres of good
land lying idle because it does not _pay_ to till it, and at the same
time we have thousands of labourers out of work who would be only too
glad to till it.
So in one part of a city you may see hundreds of houses standing empty,
and in another part of the same city you may see hard-working people
living three and four families in a small cottage.
Then, under competition, where there are many firms in the same trade,
and where each firm wants to get as much trade as it can, a great deal
of money is spent by these firms in trying to get the trade from each
other.
Thus all the cost of advertisements, of travellers' wages, and a lot of
the cost of book-keeping, arise from the fact that there are many firms
all trying to snatch the trade from each other.
Non-Socialists claim that this clumsy and costly way of going to work is
really the best way there is. They say that competition gets the work
done by the best men and at the lowest rate.
Perhaps some of them believe this; but it is not true. The mistake is
caused by the fact that _competition_ is better than _monopoly_.
That is to say, if there is only one tram company in a town the fares
will be higher than if there are two; because when there are two one
tries to undersell the other.
But take a town where there are two tram companies undercutting and
working against each other, and hand the trams over to the Corporation,
and you will find that the work is done better, is done cheaper, and the
men are better paid than under competition.
This is because the Corporation is at less cost, has less waste, and
does not want _profits_.
Well, under _Socialism_ all the work of the nation would be managed by
the nation--or perhaps I had better say by "the people," for some of the
work would be _local_ and some would be _national_. I will show you what
I mean.
It might be better for each town to manage its own gas and water, to
bake its own bread and brew its own beer. But it would be better for the
post office to be managed by the nation, because that has to do with
_all_ the towns.
So we should find that some kinds of work were best done locally--that
is, by each town or county--and that some were best done nationally,
that is, by a body of officials acting for the nation.
For instance, tramways would be local and railways national; gas and
water would be local and collieries national; police would be local and
the army and navy national.
The kind of _Socialism_ I am advocating here is Collectivism, or
_Practical Socialism_. Motto: Britain for the British, the land and all
the instruments of production, distribution, and exchange to be the
property of the nation, and to be managed _by_ the nation _for_ the
nation.
The land and railways, collieries, etc., to be _bought_ from the present
owners, but not at fancy prices.
Wages to be paid, and goods to be sold.
Thus, you see, Collectivism is really an extension of the _principles_,
or ideas, of local government, and of the various corporation and civil
services.
And now I tell you that is Socialism, and I ask you what is there in it
to prevent any man from being a Christian, or from attending a place of
worship, or from marrying, or being faithful to his wife, or from
keeping and bringing up his children at home?
There is nothing in it to destroy religion, and there is nothing in it
to destroy the home, and there is nothing in it to foster vice.
But there _is_ something in it to kill ignorance and to destroy vice.
There is something in it to shut up the gaols, to do away with
prostitution, to reduce crime and drunkenness, and wipe out for ever the
sweater and the slums, the beggars and the idle rich, the useless fine
ladies and lords, and to make it possible for sober and willing workers
to live healthy and happy and honourable lives.
For Socialism would teach and train all children wisely; it would foster
genius and devotion to the common good; it would kill scamping and
loafing and jerrymandering; it would give us better health, better
homes, better work, better food, better lives, and better men and women.