Upper House is a flagrant anachronism. The structure of our society
is no longer feudal, and government by a hereditary territorial
aristocracy is therefore out of date. Moreover there are practical
disadvantages in the present system, since, though the Lords do not
reject anything which the people really want, they do sometimes
mutilate valuable measures in the interest of property owners. If
therefore it be found possible without wasting too much valuable
energy to introduce new elements into the composition of the Second
Chamber, one would not refuse to consider the idea. This is in fact
almost certain, to be done some day--probably by the Tories anxious to
strengthen the Upper House. The inclusion of elected representatives
from the Colonies might be a very good way to begin.
With the Disestablishment of the Church the case is rather different.
The abolition of hereditary aristocracy, though difficult and
not particularly urgent, might be a good thing in itself. Church
Disestablishment on the other hand would, I am convinced, be not only a
waste of time and energy, but a most undesirable and retrograde step.
Surely it is not for us Socialists to agitate for the desocialisation
of national religion and for the transfer of what is now in effect
national property to private and irresponsible hands. Moreover the
denationalisation of the Church would be from a tactical point of
view a most fatal step. I say this without reference to the question
(upon which Socialists will hold all sorts of divergent opinions) of
the truth of the doctrines of the Church of England or indeed of any
form of Christianity or Theism. It has been often pointed out that
the Church has shown itself more easily permeable by the Socialist
movement than have any of the Dissenting bodies. Many reasons have
been suggested to account for this, and no doubt there is an element
of truth in all of them. Without doubt the Catholic and Sacramental
system of theology blends more easily with Socialism than the
Evangelical theology does. It is also unquestionably true that the
feudal traditions which still linger in the English Church are more
akin to the ideas of Socialism than are the Liberal and Individualist
traditions of Dissent. But one of the most important causes of the
more sympathetic attitude of the clergy of the Established Church
is surely this, that the Church, being established and endowed, is
responsible to the people and to the people alone, while the “Free”
Churches are bound hand and foot to the wealthy deacons and elders on
whose subscription they are forced to rely. Disestablish the Church
and the rich subscriber will rule her with a rod of iron. Democratic
priests will be hampered and harassed as democratic ministers are now.
This, it seems to me, is not a result to which (whatever our religious
views) we can look forward without anxiety. Whether “priestcraft” be
a good or a bad force, it is without doubt an extremely powerful one;
and it is clearly the business of Socialists, whether Christian or
Secularist, to see that, so far as is possible, it shall be exercised
on their side. The sound Socialist policy is not to disestablish the
Church of England, but to establish concurrently all religious bodies
of sufficient magnitude and importance to count. Had this been done
in Ireland thirty years ago, as Matthew Arnold recommended, had we,
instead of disestablishing the Anglican Church there, established and
endowed the Roman Catholic Church along side of her, how much less
serious might our difficulties in that country have been!
As to the elective franchise and kindred questions they can hardly be
regarded as any longer pressing. It would be a good thing, I do not
deny, if our conditions of registration were simplified, but that is
not a question upon which the people feel or can be expected to feel
very keenly. No class is now intentionally disfranchised,--it is only a
matter of individuals. In other words, though there are anomalies and
inconveniences in our electoral system, there is no longer any specific
grievance. Women might perhaps have a grievance if any large number
of them demanded the right to vote, but until this is so politicians
cannot be expected to pay much attention to the matter. There is
a stronger case for redistribution, but this (owing to the gross
over-representation of Ireland) is generally regarded as a Conservative
rather than a Liberal measure.
The only political reform that seems at all worth fighting for is
the payment of members. This is really desirable and important, and
should be pushed to the front when political questions are under
discussion. For not only would it open Parliament more freely to the
representatives of the workers, but it would also make the position
of an M.P., a more responsible one. A paid representative, it may
reasonably be supposed, would take his profession more seriously,
and would at the same time be looked after more sharply by his
constituents. We have on the whole quite enough gentlemanly and
well-meaning amateurs in politics to whom legislation is a harmless
hobby, and who are readily enough outwitted and captured by the keen
and energetic representatives of finance who do take their business
seriously and mean to win. Therefore if we are to have any political
changes at all let us go straight for payment of members.
SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION.
In previous chapters I have generally begun by criticising the Liberal
policy in relation to the matter to be discussed. It would seem natural
in this chapter to deal with the Liberal policy in relation to social
reform. But in that case the essay would be an exceedingly short one.
There is no Liberal policy in relation to social reform.
The nearest thing to a least common denominator which I can find after
searching diligently the speeches of the Liberal leaders and their
backers is that most of them are in favour of doing something to
the “land monopoly.” Exactly what they propose to do to it I cannot
quite discover. “Overthrowing the land monopoly” may mean Leasehold
Enfranchisement; it may mean the Taxation of Land Values; it may
mean Small Holdings, Free Sale or the Nationalisation of Land. The
last suggestion may be dismissed; we are certainly no more likely to
get that from the Liberals than from the Tories. Small Holdings are
excellent things, but the principle has been conceded, and we are as
likely to get a further extension of it from the Tories as from the
Liberals, in any case this policy does not touch the essence of the
social question. Leasehold Enfranchisement, Free Sale, etc., are sham
reforms of middle-class origin of which we now hear little. There
remains the Taxation of Land Values.
The Taxation of Land Values is very popular with the Liberals just
now. Whether it would be equally popular with them were they in office
is perhaps a matter for legitimate speculation. It will be remembered
that it was part of their programme in 1892, and is to this day faintly
discernable on the newly cleaned slate of the party. As however it is
re-emerging into prominence it maybe well to say something in reference
to it.
A good deal of confusion is inevitable concerning this particular
proposal, arising from the fact that it may be regarded in two entirely
different lights. It may be considered simply as one way among many
others of raising revenue to meet necessary public expenditure, or it
may be regarded as a practical application of the economic doctrines
associated with the name of Henry George, who taught that all revenue
should be raised by a single tax (or more properly rent) on the site
value of land. Now Georgian economics have made practically no headway
in this country; their _a priori_ logic, their reliance on abstract
assumptions rather than on history and practical experiment, their
rigidity and inflexibility of application, are exasperating to a people
naturally impatient of metaphysics but keenly alive to immediate
social needs. People who begin their economic speculations, as the
Georgites generally do, by discussing what are the natural rights of
man and deducing from this an ideally perfect system of taxation and
government put themselves out of court with practical men. There are
no natural rights of man; there is no abstractly perfect economic
or political system; we are painfully struggling by means of many
experiments and many failures towards something like a decently
workable one.
But, though Georgism is a horse so dead that to flog it would be
profitless malignity, the taxation of land values, conceived not as
the _only_ means of raising revenue, but as an _additional_ means of
doing so, is very much in favour both with some of the leaders and
with the whole rank and file of the Opposition. Nor is the reason far
to seek. The misery and waste produced by our present social system
are so patent and terrible that a vague feeling that “something must
be done” has been spreading rapidly through all classes, and even
Liberals have caught the infection. Most drastic reforms however
are impossible for them because such reforms would clash with the
interests of the capitalists and traders who form the backbone of the
party. To them therefore the proposal to tax land values comes as a
special interposition of Providence to succour them in their need.
It professes to do something for the poor,--exactly what they might
find some difficulty in saying. But a certain amount of ill-digested
Georgism can be exploited in support of their case, while at the same
time a loud and definite appeal can be made to the Liberal capitalists
and the Liberal bourgeoise to share in the plunder of the land-owners.
Unfortunately the cock will not fight. The working classes, not
believing in Georgian economics, are, because of the hardness of
their hearts, supremely indifferent to the taxation of land values.
Neither the ingenuity of eccentric economists nor the eloquence of
Liberal capitalists can induce them to take the slightest interest in
the subject. No Trades Union Congress can be persuaded to take it up;
no Labour candidate will make it a prominent plank in his platform.
The workers may not be expert economists, but they are not quite so
easily deluded as the Liberals suppose. They have a very shrewd eye to
their own interests, and are quite acute enough to know that it is the
capitalist and not the landlord who is the most active and dangerous
enemy of the labourer, and to perceive that the talk about “the land
monopoly” is merely a clever if somewhat transparent dodge on the part
of the former to divert public indignation from himself to his sleeping
partner in exploitation.
I am for getting the last farthing of unearned increment wherever
it can be got. But I can see no earthly reason for taxing unearned
increment from land more than any other kind. What we really want is
a heavily graduated income tax with a discrimination against unearned
incomes. This would hit the landlord and the capitalist equally hard,
and is therefore not likely to find favour with the Liberal party.
But even if the taxation of land values were as perfect a method of
raising revenue for public purposes as its advocates assert, it would
still be necessary to insist that no alteration in the incidence of
taxation will ever solve the problem of poverty. Suppose that you have
got every penny of unearned increment into the public treasury, the
question then arises--What are you going to do with it? If you keep
it locked up in a box, the last state of the people will be worse
than the first. If it is to be of benefit to anybody this revenue
must be used by the State as industrial capital. That is to say the
socialisation of industry must go hand in hand with the reform of
taxation.
Now what the Labour party really wants just now is two or three genuine
installments of Socialism on which to concentrate its energies. A party
without a programme is always an absurdity; a labour party without
a programme is an absurdity passing the just limits of farce. It is
futile to think that you can keep a party together much less build up a
new one, with no common basis save the desire to amend trade union law,
which appears to be the only demand on which the L.R.C. is united at
present.
And the programme of the Labour party must, for reasons already cited,
be a Socialist and not a Liberal programme. I do not mean that the
whole party should call itself Socialist or should be committed
to Socialism as that term is understood by the S.D.F. We have been
surfeited in the past with abstract resolutions in favour of “the
socialisation of all the means of production, distribution and
exchange.” But I do maintain that the programme must be collectivist in
tendency and must have the organisation of industry by the state and
the abolition of industrial parasitism as its ultimate goal. Also it
must as far as possible appeal directly to the interests of the people
for with all his great qualities the British workman is constitutionary
defective in the capacity for seeing far before his nose, and will not
readily grow enthusiastic about the soundest economic measure which
does not obviously improve the position of his class. At the same
time the labour party would do well to avoid too much narrowness of
outlook, since there are, as we shall see, some measures which do not
appear at first sight to benefit the worker directly, but which are
indispensable conditions of his ultimate emancipation. Such measures
should therefore be put along side of the more patently beneficial one
and their connection with these as far as possible made plain to the
electorate.
The greatest strides which applied Socialism has made during the last
twenty years have been made in connection with the municipalities. The
best proof that can be given of the immense and salutary growth of
municipal activity in recent years is to be found in the angry panic
which this growth has produced among the financial exploiters of public
needs. The latter, having at their back boundless wealth and influence,
a powerful and lavishly endowed organisation, a vast army of lecturers
and pamphleteers, and the greatest and most weighty of British
newspapers, opened a year or so ago a fierce campaign against what
they called “Municipal Socialism.” Never did so potent an army suffer
so humiliating a reverse. On the progress of municipal trading the
attack made no impression whatsoever. The public at large saw through
the game and gave the public-spirited authorities their generous and
energetic support. The municipal movement has received no check; it
has gone on more triumphantly than ever. Energetic local bodies have
pushed their activities further and taken the satisfaction of public
needs more and more out of the hands of private speculators, vesting
it in those of responsible public officials. But the opponents of
municipalism are still active, clever and unscrupulous; and we cannot
afford to leave the public interest at any disadvantage in dealing with
them. It is unquestionably at such a disadvantage at present, partly
on account of the inconveniently restricted boundaries of local areas,
partly because of the anti-progressive bias of the Local Government
Board, and partly because of the state of the law in regard to the
powers of local authorities. The first point has been discussed so
excellently by Mr. H. G. Wells and others that I need do no more than
allude to it here; with the second I shall deal later. But the third is
of special importance.
In the present state of the law a private individual or a collection of
private individuals may do anything which the law does not expressly
forbid; but a municipality or local body of any kind may only do
what the law expressly permits. Thus for instance the London County
Council has by law the power to run trams, but when it attempted to
run an omnibus line to and from its tram terminus, the private omnibus
companies successfully invoked the law against it. This is absurd;
it is intolerable that a public authority should not be permitted
to supply what its constituents definitely demand without going to
a largely indifferent and largely hostile parliament for permission
to do so. Broadly speaking County and Borough Councils at any rate
should have power to do anything that the nation through the national
legislature does not definitely prohibit. It would be well for the
Labour party in Parliament to demand a free hand for progressive
municipalities such as can only be secured by legislation on these
lines.
The Housing Question connects itself closely with this matter, for its
only possible solution will be found to be along the lines of municipal
activity. But, in addition to a free hand for municipalities to build
houses when and where they like, it would be well to consider whether
in the face of the present house famine it is wise to raise our local
revenues by what is in effect a heavy tax on houses. The payment of say
half the rates on well-built and sanitary working-class dwellings out
of the proceeds of government grants would give a much needed impetus
to both municipal and private enterprise in this direction.
Meanwhile the Labour men on municipal bodies should make the fullest
use of such powers as they already possess and push forward vigorously
with their campaign of municipal socialism in such a manner that the
workman may perceive its direct benefits. His Housing should be visibly
cheaper and better, his trams visibly quicker, less expensive and more
comfortable, his gas and water supply visibly improved on account
of their transfer to a public body. At the same time of course the
labour employed by the municipality in conducting these industries
should receive what we may call (to borrow a phrase from diplomacy)
“most favoured employé” treatment. It may be remarked that it is not
desirable that municipal undertakings should aim at large profits.
Theoretically this is indefensible for it means that the consumer pays
more than his fair share of the rates; practically it is undesirable,
since it tends to obscure the real benefits of municipal enterprise.
In national affairs the progress of definite socialism cannot
perhaps be so rapid. But the Labour party might well press for the
nationalisation of mines, especially of coal fields (already demanded
by the Trade Union Congress), the state regulation and ultimate
nationalisation of railways, canals and other means of transit, and
should insist on government departments doing their own work wherever
possible and paying not less than the standard rate of wages.[10]
But legislation of this kind has only an indirect effect upon the
real problem that confronts the people of this country,--the people
of all countries which have developed along the lines of industrial
civilisation. With the appalling evidences of physical degeneration
confronting us, we cannot, whether we are Socialists or Labourites or
only decently humane and patriotic Englishmen, do without a social
policy. In the last resort, all progress, all empire, all efficiency
depends upon the kind of race we breed. If we are breeding the people
badly neither the most perfect constitution nor the most skilful
diplomacy will save us from shipwreck.
What are we to do with the great masses of unskilled, unorganised
labour in our big towns? That is the question which intelligent
thinkers are now asking themselves; and, as Carlyle said “England
will answer it, or on the whole England will perish.” We have drained
our country side and destroyed our agriculture to a great extent
deliberately in order to obtain this vast city proletariat. Its
condition is appalling; it is starved at school, over-worked when it
is just growing into manhood, and afterwards drifts into the ghastly
back-waters of our towns, now sweated, now unemployed, always an open
sore, a contamination, a menace to our national life. That is what
fifty years of applied Liberalism have made of about a third of the
English people.
Well, the first thing we must do is to try to save the next generation
if we cannot save this one. The child at any rate must be protected.
One of the first and most urgent of the social reforms needed is the
feeding of children in public elementary schools. To teach unfed
or underfed children is a sheer piece of profitless brutality.
Compulsory and free feeding is as necessary to us as compulsory and
free teaching--more necessary in fact for more could in the long run
be made of an ignorant people that was fit and healthy physically
than of a race of white-faced cripples, whom society had crammed with
book-learning to satisfy its theories as barbarously as it crams geese
with food to satisfy its palate. We are entitled therefore to demand
the free feeding of all children attending Public Elementary Schools.
Of course all sorts of less drastic proposals will be made--proposals
for feeding destitute children only, or for making a charge, or for
recovering the cost of the meals from the parents. Some of these
proposals will be better than others, and we must take the best we can
get. But none of them will solve the problem. Nor will the problem be
solved by any merely permissive legislation, giving local authorities
the _power_ to feed children without compelling them to use it. A local
authority has no more right to underfeed its children than a parent
has. All local authorities must be held responsible for the proper
feeding of school children with their areas of administration, as they
are already held responsible for their proper instruction.
At the same time another policy might be adopted the results of which
would indirectly be of perhaps still greater value. I suggest that
while these experiments are proceeding there should be a periodical
physical examination of all the children in the elementary schools
by duly authorised medical officers. This would be a good test of
the success of the new feeding policy and might form the basis for
an extension of the principle of grants in aid to encourage those
municipalities which were most zealous in looking after the physical
well-being of the children. But its usefulness would not end there; it
would provide us with what we most want a really reliable collection of
sociological data upon which future reforms could be based.
But when the child leaves school the need of protection by no means
ceases. Our factory code already recognises that the setting of
children to hard commercial work before their minds and bodies have had
time to develop is as wasteful (from a national point of view) as it is
inhuman. But the application of the principle is still half-hearted.
Children over eleven can in some parts of the Kingdom be employed in
factories provided that they put in one school attendance per day; the
age at which even this provision ceases to operate is fourteen, after
which the children are held to become “young persons,” and may work
sixty hours or more per week. This is clearly very little security
for the physical and moral development of the race. No child should,
under any circumstances whatever, be allowed to work for wages until
he or she is--say fourteen. From fourteen to twenty the “half-time”
arrangement might be made to apply, and, as has already been
suggested, we could use the time so gained in order to give the young
people effective technical, and, in their latter years, also military
training, thereby immensely improving their physique and at the same
time forming a national reserve of almost invincible strength.