There would be something touching in the way in which people
discuss the question of labour and wages, and in the desperate
efforts made by Mr. Gladstone and other persons of high position to
make love to the workmen, if there was not almost always a touch
of absurdity in such proceedings. Mr. Gladstone, in particular,
never approaches such subjects without an elaborate patting and
stroking of the working man, which is intelligible only upon the
assumption that primâ facie the labourer and the gentleman are
natural enemies, and that they must be expected to regard each
other as such, unless the higher class approaches the lower with
the most elaborate assurances of goodwill and kindness. Such
language as the following appears to us very ill-judged. After
condemning in strong terms the crimes committed by some trade
unions, Mr. Gladstone went on to say:--"Some things the working
men required at their hands. In the first place, it was required
that they should be approached in a friendly spirit, that they
should feel that they were able to place confidence in their
good intentions, that they should be assured that they were not
approached in the spirit of class, but in the spirit of men who
were attached to the truth," etc., etc. What can be the use of this
sort of preaching? Does any human being suppose that any kind of
men whatsoever, whether working men or idle men, are indifferent to
being approached in an unfriendly spirit; or are disposed to deal
with people whom they believe to entertain bad intentions towards
them, or to be utterly indifferent to their interests, or to be
actuated by interests opposed to their own? Such protestations
always appear to us either prosy, patronizing, or insincere. No
one suspects Mr. Gladstone of insincerity, but at times he is
as prosy as a man must be, who, being already fully occupied
with politics, will never miss an opportunity of doing a little
philanthrophy and promoting peace and goodwill between different
classes of the community. Blessed no doubt are the peacemakers,
but at times they are bores.
After Mr. Gladstone's little sermon the meeting proceeded to
discuss a variety of resolutions about strikes, some of which seem
very unimportant. One piece of vigorous good sense enlivened the
discussion, and appears to us to sum up pretty nearly all that
can be said upon the whole subject of strikes. It was uttered
by Mr. Applegarth, who observed that "no sentiment ought to be
brought into the subject. The employers were like the employed in
trying to get as much as possible for as little as they could" Add
to this the obvious qualification that even in driving a bargain
it is possible to insist too strongly upon your own interest,
and that it never can be in the interest either of masters or of
men that the profits of any given trade to the capitalist should
be permanently depressed much below the average profits of other
trades; and nearly all that can be said upon the subject will
have been said. If, instead of meeting together and kissing each
other in public, masters and men would treat each other simply as
civilized and rational beings who have to drive a bargain, and who
have a common interest in producing the maximum of profit, though
their interests in dividing it when it is produced are conflicting,
they would get on much better together. People can buy and sell
all sorts of other things without either quarrelling or crying
over the transaction, and if they could only see it, there is no
reason why they should not deal in labour just as coolly.
The most remarkable feature of the evening was the attack made by
Mr. Ruskin on this view of the subject. Replying to Mr. Dering,
who had said that whenever it was possible "men would seek
their own interests even at the expense of other classes," he
observed [19] that many students of political economy "looked
upon man as a predatory animal, while man on the contrary was an
affectionate animal, and until the mutual interest of classes
was based upon affection, difficulties must continue between
those classes." There are, as it appears to us, several weak
points in this statement. One obvious one is that most animals
are both predatory and affectionate. Wolves will play together,
herd together, hunt together, kill sheep together; and yet,
if one wolf is wounded, the rest will eat him up. Animals,
too, which as between each other are highly affectionate, are
predatory to the last degree as against creatures of a different
species or creatures of their own species who have got something
which they want. Hence, if men are actuated to some extent
at some times, and towards some persons, by their affections,
and to a different extent at other times towards the same or
other persons by their predatory instincts, they would resemble
other animals. Mr. Ruskin's opposition between the predatory and
affectionate animal is thus merely imaginary. Apart from this,
the description of man as "an affectionate animal" appears to us
not merely incomplete but misleading. Of course the affections
are a most important branch of human nature, but they are by no
means the whole of it. A very large department of human nature
is primarily self-regarding. A man eats and drinks because he is
hungry or thirsty, and he buys and sells because he wants to get
gain. These are and always will be his leading motives, but they
are no doubt to a certain extent counteracted in civilized life
by motives of a different kind. No man is altogether destitute
of regard for the interests and wishes of his neighbours, and
almost every one will sacrifice something more or less for the
gratification of others. Still, self-interest of the most direct
unmistakable kind is the great leading active principle in many
departments of life, and in particular in the trading department:
to deny this is to shut one's eyes to the sun at noonday. To try
to change is like trying to stop the revolution of the earth. To
call it a "predatory" instinct is to talk at random. To take from
a man by force what he possesses is an essentially different thing
from driving the hardest of hard bargains with him. Every bargain
is regarded as an advantage by both parties at the time when it is
made, otherwise it would not be made at all. If I save a drowning
man's life on condition that he will convey to me his whole estate,
he is better off than if I leave him to drown. My act is certainly
not affectionate, but neither is it predatory. It improves the
condition of both parties, and the same is true of all trade.
The most singular part of Mr. Ruskin's address consisted of a
catechism which appears to us to admit of very simple answers,
which we will proceed to give, as "the questions were received with
much applause," though we do not appreciate their importance. They
are as follows:--
Question.--"1. It is stated in a paper read before the
jurisprudence section of the National Association for the Promotion
of Social Science, and afterwards published at their office,
that 'without the capitalist labour could accomplish nothing,'
(p. 4). But for long periods of time in some parts of the world
the accumulation of money was forbidden, and in others it was
impossible. Has labour never accomplished anything in such
districts?"
Answer.--Capital is not merely "an accumulation of money." It is
a general name for the whole stock by and out of which things
are made. Labour never accomplished anything without materials
or anything important without tools, and materials and tools
are capital.
Question.--"2. Supposing that in the present state of England
the capital is necessary, are capitalists so? In other words,
is it needful for right operation of capital that it should be
administered under the arbitrary power of one person?"
Answer.--Yes, it is, unless you do away with the institution
of private property. It is necessary for the right operation of
capital that some one or other should have arbitrary power over it,
and that arbitrary power must either be lodged in individuals,
who thereupon become capitalists, or else in the public or its
representatives, in which case there is only one capitalist--the
State.