THE SUCCESSFUL MAN
There are many who believe that if all the workers became abstainers,
worked harder, lived sparely, and saved every penny they could; and that
if they avoided early marriages and large families, they would all be
happy and prosperous without Socialism.
And, of course, these same persons believe that the bulk of the
suffering and poverty of the poor is due to drink, to thriftlessness,
and to imprudent marriages.
I know that many, very many, do believe these things, because I used to
meet such persons when I went out lecturing.
Now I know that belief to be wrong. I know that if every working man and
woman in England turned teetotaler to-morrow, if they all remained
single, if they all worked like niggers, if they all worked for twelve
hours a day, if they lived on oatmeal and water, and if they saved every
farthing they could spare, they would, at the end of twenty years, be a
great deal worse off than they are to-day.
Sobriety, thrift, industry, skill, self-denial, holiness, are all good
things; but they would, if adopted by _all_ the workers, simply enrich
the idle and the wicked, and reduce the industrious and the righteous to
slavery.
Teetotalism will not do; industry will not do; saving will not do;
increased skill will not do; keeping single will not do; reducing the
population will not do. Nothing _will_ do but _Socialism_.
I mean to make these things plain to you if I can.
I will begin by answering a statement made by a Tory M.P. As reported in
the Press, the M.P. said, "There was nothing to prevent the son of a
crossing-sweeper from rising to be Lord Chancellor of England."
This, at first sight, would seem to have nothing to do with the theories
regarding thrift, temperance, and prudent marriages. But we shall find
that it arises from the same error.
This error has two faces. On one face it says that any man may do well
if he will try, and on the other face it says that those who do not do
well have no one but themselves to blame.
The error rises from a slight confusion of thought. Men know that a man
may rise from the lowest place in life to almost the highest, and they
suppose that because one man can do it, _all_ men can do it; they know
that if one man works hard, saves, keeps sober, and remains single, he
will get more money than other men who drink and spend and take life
easily, and they suppose because thrift, single life, industry, and
temperance spell success to one man, they would spell success to _all_.
I will show you that this is a mistake, and I will show you why it is a
mistake. Let us begin with the crossing-sweeper.
We are told that "_there is nothing to prevent_ the son of _a_
crossing-sweeper from becoming Lord Chancellor of England." But our M.P.
does not mean that there is nothing to prevent the son of some one
particular crossing-sweeper from becoming Chancellor; he means that
there is nothing to prevent _any_ son of _any_ crossing-sweeper, or the
son of _any_ very poor man, from becoming rich and famous.
Now, let me show you what nonsense this is.
There are in all England, let us say, some 2,000,000 of poor and
friendless and untaught boys.
And there is _one_ Lord Chancellor. Now, it is just possible for _one_
boy out of the 2,000,000 to become Lord Chancellor; but it is quite
impossible for _all_ the boys, or even for one boy in 1000, or for one
boy in 10,000, to become Lord Chancellor.
Our M.P. means that if a boy is clever and industrious he may become
Lord Chancellor.
But suppose _all_ the boys are as clever and as industrious as he is,
they cannot _all_ become chancellors.
The one boy can only succeed because he is stronger, cleverer, more
pushing, more persistent, or more _lucky_ than any other boy.
In my story, _Bob's Fairy_, this very point is raised. I will quote it
for you here. Bob, who is a boy, is much troubled about the poor; his
father, who is a self-made man and mayor of his native town, tells Bob
that the poor are suffering because of their own faults. The parson then
tries to make Bob understand--
"Come, come, come," said the reverend gentleman, "you are too young
for such questions. Ah--let me try to--ah--explain it to you. Here
is your father. He is wealthy. He is honoured. He is mayor of his
native town. Now, how did he make his way?"
Mr. Toppinroyd smiled, and poured himself out another glass of wine.
His wife nodded her head approvingly at the minister.
"Your father," continued the minister, "made himself what he is by
industry, thrift, and talent."
"If another man was as clever, and as industrious and thrifty as
father," said Bob, "could he get on as well?"
"Of course he could," replied Mr. Toppinroyd.
"Then the poor are not like that?" asked Bob.
"I regret to say," said the parson, "that--ah--they are not."
"But if they were like father, they could do what he has done?" Bob
said.
"Of course, you silly," exclaimed his mother.
Ned chuckled behind his paper. Kate turned to the piano.
Bob nodded and smiled. "How droll!" said he.
"What's droll?" his father asked sharply.
"Why," said Bob, "how funny it would be if all the people were
industrious, and clever, and steady!"
"Funny?" ejaculated the parson.
"Funny?" repeated Mr. Toppinroyd.
"What do you mean, dear?" inquired Mrs. Toppinroyd mildly.
"If all the men in Loomborough were as clever and as good as
father," said Bob simply, "there would be 50,000 rich mill-owners,
and they would all be mayor of the same town."
Mr. Toppinroyd gave a sharp glance at his son, then leaned forward,
boxed his ears, and said--
"Get to bed, you young monkey. Go!"
Do you see the idea? The poor cannot _all_ be mayors and chancellors and
millionaires, because there are too many of them and not enough high
places.
But they can all be asses, and they will be asses, if they listen to
such rubbish as that uttered by this Tory M.P.
You have twenty men starting for a race. You may say, "There is nothing
to prevent any man from winning the race," but you mean any one man who
is luckier or swifter than the rest. You would never be foolish enough
to believe that _all_ the men could win. You know that nineteen of the
men _must lose_.
So we know that in a race for the Chancellorship _only one_ boy can win,
and the other 1,999,999 _must lose_.
It is the same thing with temperance, industry, and cleverness. Of
10,000 mechanics one is steadier, more industrious, and more skilful
than the others. Therefore he will get work where the others cannot. But
_why_? Because he is worth more as a workman. But don't you see that if
all the others were as good as he, he would _not_ be worth more?
Then you see that to tell 1,000,000 men that they will get more work or
more wages if they are cleverer, or soberer, or more industrious, is as
foolish as to tell the twenty men starting for a race that they can all
win if they will all try.
If all the men were just as fast as the winner, the race would end in a
dead heat.
There is a fire panic in a big hall. The hall is full of people, and
there is only one door. A rush is made for that door. Some of the crowd
get out, some are trampled to death, some are injured, some are burned.
Now, of that crowd of people, who are most likely to escape?
Those nearest to the door have a better chance than those farthest, have
they not?
Then the strong have a better chance than the weak, have they not?
And the men have a better chance than the women, and the children the
worst chance of all. Is it not so?
Then, again, which is most likely to be saved--the selfish man who
fights and drags others down, who stands upon the fallen bodies of women
and children, and wins his way by force; or the brave and gentle man who
tries to help the women and the children, and will not trample upon the
wounded?
Don't you know that the noble and brave man stands a poor chance of
escape, and that the selfish, brutal man stands a good chance of escape?
Well, now, suppose a man to have got out, perhaps because he was near
the door, or perhaps because he was very strong, or perhaps because he
was very lucky, or perhaps because he did not stop to help the women and
children, and suppose him to stand outside the door, and cry out to the
struggling and dying creatures in the burning hall, "Serves you jolly
well right if you _do_ suffer. Why don't you get out? _I_ got out. You
can get out if you _try_. _There is nothing to prevent any one of you
from getting out._"
Suppose a man talked like that, what would you say of him? Would you
call him a sensible man? Would you call him a Christian? Would you call
him a gentleman?
You will say I am severe. I am. Every time a successful man talks as
this M.P. talks he inflicts a brutal insult upon the unsuccessful, many
thousands of whom, both men and women, are worthier and better than
himself.
But let us go back to our subject. That fire panic in the big hall is a
picture of _life_ as it is to-day.
It is a scramble of a big crowd to get through a small door. Those who
get through are cheered and rewarded, and few questions are asked as to
_how_ they got through.
Now, Socialists say that there should be more doors, and no scramble.
But let me use this example of the hall and the panic more fully.
Suppose the hall to be divided into three parts. First the stalls, then
the pit stalls, then the pit. Suppose the only door is the door in the
stalls. Suppose the people in the pit stalls have to climb a high
barrier to get to the stalls. Suppose those in the pit have to climb a
high barrier to get to the pit stalls, and then the high barrier that
parts the pit stalls from the stalls. Suppose there is, right at the
back of the pit, a small, weak boy. Now, I ask you, as sensible men, is
there "nothing to prevent" that boy from getting through that door? You
know the boy has only the smallest of chances of getting out of that
hall. But he has a thousand times a better chance of getting safely out
of that door than the son of a crossing-sweeper has of becoming Lord
Chancellor of England.
In our hall the upper classes would sit in the stalls, the middle
classes in the pit stalls, and the workers in the pit. _Whose son would
have the best chance for the door?_
I compared the race for the Chancellorship just now to a foot-race of
twenty men; and I showed you that if all the runners were as fleet as
greyhounds only one could win, and nineteen _must_ lose.
But the M.P.'s crossing-sweeper's son has to enter a race where there
are millions of starters, and where the race is a _handicap_ in which he
is on scratch, with thousands of men more than half the course in front
of him.
For don't you see that this race which the lucky or successful men tell
us we can _all_ win is not a fair race?
The son of the crossing-sweeper has terrible odds against him. The son
of the gentleman has a long start, and carries less weight.
What are the qualities needed in a race for the Chancellorship? The boy
who means to win must be marvellously strong, clever, brave, and
persevering.
Now, will he be likely to be strong? He _may_ be, but the odds are
against him. His father may not be strong nor his mother, for they may
have worked hard, and they may not have been well fed, nor well nursed,
nor well doctored. They probably live in a slum, and they cannot train,
nor teach, nor feed their son in a healthy and proper way, because they
are ignorant and poor. And the boy gets a few years at a board school,
and then goes to work.
But the gentleman's son is well bred, well fed, well nursed, well
trained, and lives in a healthy place. He goes to good schools, and from
school to college.
And when he leaves college he has money to pay fees, and he has a name,
and he has education; and I ask you, what are the odds against the son
of a crossing-sweeper in a race like that?
Well, there is not a single case where men are striving for wealth or
for place where the sons of the workers are not handicapped in the same
way. Now and again a worker's son wins. He may win because he is a
genius like Stephenson or Sir William Herschel; or he may win because he
is cruel and unscrupulous, like Jay Gould; or he may win because he is
lucky.
But it is folly to say that there is "nothing to prevent him" from
winning. There is almost everything to prevent him. To begin with, his
chances of dying before he's five years old are about ten times as
numerous as the chances of a rich man's son.
Look at Lord Salisbury. He is Prime Minister of England. Had he been
born the son of a crossing-sweeper do you think he would have been Prime
Minister?
I would undertake to find a hundred better minds than Lord Salisbury's
in any English town of 10,000 inhabitants. But will any one of the boys
I should select become Prime Minister of England? You know they will
not. But yet they ought to, if "there is nothing to prevent them."
But there is something to prevent them. There is poverty to prevent
them, there is privilege to prevent them, there is snobbery to prevent
them, there is class feeling to prevent them, there are hundreds of
other things to prevent them, and amongst those hundreds of other things
to prevent them from becoming Prime Ministers I hope that their own
honesty and goodness and wisdom may be counted; for honesty and goodness
and true wisdom are things which will often prevent a poor boy who is
lucky enough to possess them from ever becoming what the world of
politics and commerce considers a "successful man."
Do not believe the doctrine that the rich and poor, the successful and
the unsuccessful, get what they deserve. If that were true we should
find intelligence and virtue keeping level with income. Then the
mechanic at 30s. a week would be half as good again as the labourer at
20s. a week; the small merchant, making L200 a year, would be a far
better man than one mechanic; the large merchant, making L2000 a year,
would be ten times as good as the small merchant; and the millionaire
would be too intellectual, too noble, and too righteous for this sinful
world.
But don't you know that there are stupid and drunken mechanics, and
steady and intelligent labourers? And don't you know that some
successful men are rascals, and that some very wealthy men are fools?
Take the story of Jacob and Esau. After Jacob cheated his hungry brother
into selling his birthright for a mess of pottage, Jacob was rich and
Esau poor. Did each get what he deserved? Was Jacob the better man?
Christ lived poor, a homeless wanderer, and died the death of a felon.
Jay Gould made millions of money, and died one of the wealthiest men in
the world. Did each get what he deserved? Did the wealth of Gould and
the poverty of Christ indicate the intellectual and moral merits of
those two sons of men?
Some of us would get whipped if all of us got our deserts; but who would
deserve applause and wealth and a crown?
In a sporting handicap the weakest have the most start: in real life the
strongest have the start and the weakest are put on scratch.
And I _have_ heard it hinted that the man who runs the straightest does
not always win.