I 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 The Case 
 against Socialism 
 
 Plainly stated 
 for the Man 
 in the Street. 
 
 By 
 
 WILLIAM 
 BEAN LAND. 
 
 London and FeIling-on>Tyne: 
 
 THE WALTER SCOTT PUBLISHING CO., LTD. 
 
 New York: 3 East Fourteenth Street. 
 
 Melbourne: aa6 Little Collins Street. 
 
 4 a 5 7 i
 
 XVI If 
 
 ^TT^r- 
 
 2:i
 
 The Case 
 against Socialism 
 
 Plainly stated for the 
 Man in the Street. 
 
 By 
 
 WILLIAM BEANLAND. 
 
 THE WALTER SCOTT PUBLISHING 
 CO., LTD., London and Felling-on-Tyne. 
 New York: 3 East Fourteenth Street. 1909.
 
 r, OCT.1920
 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 I DESIRE to have it distinctly understood that 
 an objection to SociaHsm and an aversion to 
 Socialistic legislation does not necessarily imply 
 contentment with the existing state of affairs. 
 I am not one of those who calmly and placidly 
 tell you " We are very well as we are." We are 
 not very well as we are. There are many 
 anomalies to be removed, many wrongs to be 
 redressed, much useless suffering to be relieved. 
 But there is no one remedy which will cure all 
 the ills of the body politic, just as there is no 
 one remedy which will cure all diseases of the 
 physical body, although many quack nostrums 
 are advertised which make this claim. 
 
 Socialism is the " purple pill " of politics, 
 warranted by those who prescribe it to be a sure 
 and certain cure for the manifold social evils which 
 civilization has brought in its train. I propose 
 very briefly to examine its claims. 
 
 This little work is not intended to be a text- 
 book for the student. He has been amply catered 
 for by other writers, such as Mr. W. H. Mallock 
 and Mr. Max Hirsch, and to these I wish to 
 
 acknowledge my own deep indebtedness. My 
 
 I 
 
 4CG016
 
 IV PREFACE. 
 
 efforts arc entirely for the benefit of him who 
 will suffer most under the rule of a Socialist 
 State, and who — least apprehending the dangers 
 and fallacies of Socialism — is most liable to be 
 attracted by the Pinchbeck Paradise which is 
 promised by Socialist orators. I appeal, as they 
 appeal, to the Man in the Street. Let him read 
 and judge between us. 
 
 WM. BEANLAND. 
 
 CONEYSTHORPE, 
 M ALTON, 
 
 March, 1909-
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER PAGB 
 
 I. — Socialistic Fallacies - - - i 
 
 II. — What is Socialism ? - - - 14 
 
 III. — Practical Difficulties - - 18 
 
 IV. — Socialism no New Thing - - 33 
 
 V, — How is a Socialist State to be 
 
 REALIZED ? - - - - 39 
 
 VI. — Socialism and the Family - - 52 
 
 VII. — Socialism and Christianity - 60 
 
 VIII. — Socialism and Slavery - - 65 
 
 IX. — Socialism and Patriotism - - 72
 
 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM 
 
 Plainly stated for the Man in the Street. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 SOCIALISTIC FALLACIES. 
 
 The whole theory of Socialism is based upon 
 fallacious assumptions. It is a harmful prescrip- 
 tion caused by a mistaken diagnosis. I have 
 heard open-air orators secure enthusiastic applause 
 by an energetic advocacy of the theory that 
 " labour produces all, and, therefore, as a matter 
 of abstract justice, has a right to all." The 
 Socialist speaker delights in contrasts; he pictures 
 on the one hand a few bloated capitalists, and 
 on the other the proletariat — vast riches and 
 unspeakable poverty — and takes no account of 
 the infinite gradations between. Let us examine 
 his statement. Does labour produce all wealth, 
 and, if not all, what proportion ? The production 
 of wealth in this country has vastly increased 
 during the last hundred years, and yet fifty 
 labourers working to-day cannot by their own 
 unaided efforts produce any more than the same
 
 2 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 number of men could have produced a hundred 
 years ago. If the carpenter, the shoemaker, or 
 the navvy had to use exactly the same instru- 
 ments as their forefathers, they could not use 
 them with any greater efficiency. The agricul- 
 tural labourer of to-day cannot dig up a larger 
 area of land in a given time than his predecessors. 
 The same argument applies to all departments of 
 industry. And yet fifty men to-day can and do 
 produce thirty, forty, and a hundredfold more 
 than they could have produced if they had lived 
 a hundred years ago. The reason is obvious. 
 The brain of the inventor has brought forth 
 mechanical contrivances and labour-saving devices 
 which have vastly increased the productive power 
 of the labourer. The labourer has not done it 
 himself; it has been done for him, and, therefore, 
 the vast increase in production during the period 
 referred to must not be credited to labour, but to 
 another factor called ability. 
 
 We must also remember that businesses are 
 now much better organized than they were, and 
 that this also is due to the exercise of ability. 
 In computing, therefore, the causes of the pro- 
 duction of wealth, we have to reckon, besides 
 labour, both inventive and directive ability. Nor 
 must we forget that as the use of capital is 
 essential to all business enterprise, the man who 
 supplies the capital — even if he does nothing else 
 — has contributed towards production, and may
 
 SOCIALISTIC FALLACIES. 3 
 
 justly claim some reward. I think it is possible 
 by means of an illustration to form some idea as 
 to how much is due to labour and how much 
 to ability in the case I shall quote. Let us 
 suppose that a firm of manufacturers give a 
 contract to a builder for the erection of a mill. 
 The contractor employs five hundred men and 
 takes eighteen months to complete the contract. 
 The firm of manufacturers afterwards require 
 another mill erecting, the exact counterpart of 
 the first, and decide to employ the same con- 
 tractor. Unfortunately, however, the contractor 
 has died, but his successor obtains the job. He 
 employs exactly the same men as his predecessor. 
 They work the same number of hours, and are 
 paid the same wages. The second building is an 
 exact duplicate of the first, but it is finished in 
 fifteen months instead of eighteen. Clearly, then, 
 the productive power of the labourers has been 
 greater, not because they put forth more strenuous 
 efforts or worked longer hours, but because their 
 efforts were directed and supervised by the second 
 employer with greater ability than was displayed 
 by the first. It must be obvious, then, that in 
 this case the ivholc of the increase in the pro- 
 ductive power of the labourers was due to ability, 
 and not to labour at all. What, then, becomes 
 of the Socialist contention that labour produces 
 all ? Like most Socialist arguments, it is a 
 fallacy. Although many Socialist orators are
 
 4 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 ignorant of the fact, the theory referred to was 
 first propounded by Karl Marx as the result of 
 a long and scientific study of economics. 
 
 The ordinary tub-thumping Socialist finds it 
 good business to appeal to the cupidity of the 
 masses. They are not slow to believe that they 
 are not getting their fair share of the national 
 wealth, and that they have been defrauded of 
 their rights. Marx, however, held this theory in 
 all seriousness, and used it as a foundation upon 
 which to erect his scheme for the Socialist State. 
 He advanced as an argument in favour of his 
 theory that owing to the increased productive 
 power of labour, the labourer could now — if he 
 were allowed to retain the entire produce of his 
 labour — maintain himself by working half or even 
 a quarter as long each day as he would have had 
 to work a hundred years ago. 
 
 Clearly, the labourer of to-day produces each 
 day more than sufficient to maintain himself and 
 his family for that day. Then what becomes of 
 the surplus ? Marx believes it to be wrongfully 
 annexed by the capitalist. Of course, if labour 
 did produce all wealth, and could continue to 
 produce all wealth without the aid of capital and 
 without being dependent on directive ability, then 
 Marx would be right. But, as we have seen, 
 labour is not responsible for all — and in the case 
 I have just quoted was not responsible for any 
 part of — the recent increase in the production of
 
 SOCIALISTIC FALLACIES. 5 
 
 wealth. It seems to me only fair to recognize 
 that three factors are necessary for the production 
 of wealth, and that each should have its fair 
 share of remuneration — viz., labour, capital, and 
 directive ability. Capital is no use without labour, 
 nor is labour any good without capital — and re- 
 member that as soon as the labourer owns a 
 spade he is possessed of capital. We also need 
 not demonstrate that which is perfectly obvious, 
 that labour, undirected, or unwisely directed, may 
 not only not produce any wealth at all, but even 
 result in loss of capital. 
 
 I was born in a manufacturing district, and 
 am perfectly certain that if all the capitalists in 
 that district were to make a present to their work- 
 people of all the mills, spinning frames, looms, 
 and woolcombing machines, and, moreover, to 
 provide an ample supply of capital to run those 
 mills, and then hand them over to their employees, 
 the capital would be lost in a very short time, 
 because there would not be sufficient directive 
 ability to guide and direct the efforts of the 
 labourers, to keep in touch with the markets, 
 and to provide for and even anticipate the wants 
 of the public. 
 
 Surely, then, we can put aside as an exploded 
 fallacy the theory that labour produces all and 
 has a right to all. lUit how is the labourer to 
 obtain his fair share of the wealth which he helps 
 to produce ? He can obtain it, and is obtaining
 
 6 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 it, by a natural evolution. Let me quote an 
 example from Mr. W. H. Mallock {Labour and 
 the Popular Welfare). " In 1843, when Queen 
 Victoria had been six or seven years on the 
 throne, the gross income of the nation was in 
 round numbers five hundred and fifteen million 
 pounds. Of this, two hundred and thirty-five 
 million pounds went to the labouring classes, and 
 the remainder, two hundred and eighty million 
 pounds, to the classes that paid income tax. 
 Only fifty years have elapsed since that time, 
 and, according to the best authority, the income 
 of the labouring classes now is certainly not less 
 than six hundred and sixty million pounds. That 
 is to say, it exceeds by a hundred and forty-five 
 million pounds the entire income of the nation 
 fifty years ago. An allowance, however, must be 
 made for the increase in the number of the 
 labourers. That is, of course, obvious, and we 
 will at once proceed to make it. But when it 
 is made, the case is hardly less wonderful. The 
 labouring classes in 1843 numbered twenty-six 
 millions. At the present time they number 
 thirty-three millions. That is to say, they have 
 increased by seven million persons. Now assum- 
 ing, as we have done, that Labour by itself 
 produces as much as fourteen pounds per head 
 of the population,^ this addition of seven million 
 
 ' At the close of the eighteenth century the income of 
 Great Britain with a population of ten millions was about
 
 SOCIALISTIC FALLACIES. 7 
 
 persons will account for an addition of ninety- 
 eight million pounds to the five hundred and 
 fifteen million pounds, which was the amount of 
 the national income fifty years ago. We must 
 therefore, to make our comparisons accurate, 
 deduct ninety-eight million pounds from the 
 hundred and forty-five million pounds just men- 
 tioned, which will leave us an addition of forty- 
 seven million pounds. We may now say, without 
 any reservation, that the labouring classes of this 
 country, in proportion to their number, receive 
 to-day forty-seven million pounds a year more 
 than the entire income of the country at the 
 beginning of the reign of Queen Victoria. . . . 
 The same number of labourers and their families 
 as then formed the whole labouring population 
 of the country now possess among them every 
 penny of the amount that then formed the income 
 of the entire nation." 
 
 I think it must be admitted that Mr. Mallock 
 has in this illustration proved clearly and con- 
 clusively that labour is getting year by- year a 
 larger and larger share of the national income. 
 
 I remarked at the commencement of this chapter 
 that the Socialist orator delights in contrasts, 
 and finds them very eifectivc arguments when he 
 addresses unthinking crowds. I have heard strect- 
 
 a hundred and forty million pounds, or fourteen pounds 
 per head for the entire population, but for the sake of 
 argument it is assumed that labour produced it all.
 
 8 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. ' 
 
 corner speakers mention by name a certain mill- 
 owner who possesses a carriage and pair, and ask 
 how it was that he could ride in luxury through 
 the streets whilst his hearers had to tramp through 
 the mud and slush. 
 
 We will suppose that the employer referred to 
 is making j^2,ooo per year, and that he employs 
 five hundred workpeople. He provides all the 
 capital, takes all risks of loss, and steers the 
 business through all the shoals and quicksands 
 of commerce, often paying wages not out of in- 
 come, but out of capital. His reward is for the 
 use of his capital and for providing the directive 
 ability which supervises and controls the efforts of 
 his workpeople. Suppose he raises the wages of 
 everybody in his employ one shilling per week. 
 This will be very little good to the workpeople. 
 They will still have to tramp through the mud 
 and slush, but the increase in the wage bill will 
 absorb 3^1,300 per year, and the employer will 
 have to walk also or hire a cab occasionally. 
 Thus we see that arguments based upon these 
 startling contrasts, though effective and popular, 
 possess very little value as arguments. 
 
 Another favourite argument of the Socialist 
 party is that the rental of the land of this country 
 is absorbed by a few rich men whom it would be 
 no crime to rob of their ill-gotten wealth. 
 
 Now what are the facts ? We will assume a 
 large landowner to be a man who owns a thousand
 
 SOCIALISTIC FALLACIES. Q 
 
 I acres. In 1878 these " large landowners " received 
 a rental of twenty-nine million pounds, whilst 
 j seventy million pounds was divided among nine 
 ' hundred and fifty thousand smaller owners. 
 
 Let the working man make no mistake. By 
 any legislation which confiscates the land of this 
 country the working classes who are interested in 
 friendly societies, co-operative societies, building 
 societies, and other institutions, and also those 
 who are fortunate enough to own the cottage in 
 which they live, will be the first to suffer. 
 
 The same result would follow an attack upon 
 the large railway companies, in whose shares 
 numerous small investors are interested. 
 
 The result would be to satisfy the cupidity of 
 the thriftless and incapable among the workers by 
 robbing the thrifty and capable; surely an unwise 
 thing to do, and one not calculated to encourage 
 thrift and energy amongst the masses of the 
 people. One Socialist fallacy which is hard to 
 kill is that all that a man possesses which he has 
 not earned by the labour of his own hands is 
 "unearned increment." 
 
 If this be true, then the working classes obtain 
 a very large amount of this " unearned increment." 
 
 Any unskilful or lazy workman who is receiving 
 the same rate of pay as his more energetic and 
 skilful comrade must be receiving unearned in- 
 crement. And yet this very state of affairs is 
 encouraged by the Trades Unions.
 
 10 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 But surely the man who uses his business 
 knowledge and foresight to buy or sell wool, 
 currants, copper, stocks and shares, land, or any- 
 thing else, is entitled to reap the reward of his 
 ability. He takes the risk. He backs his judg- 
 ment by adventuring his capital. If he loses, he 
 obtains no sympathy. If he wins, he has earned 
 his reward as fairly and justly as the man who has 
 made a table or a coat, and receives payment for 
 doing so. In one case the reward is for mental 
 labour and in the other for physical. In neither 
 case is it unearned increment. The Socialist 
 party as a body do not seem to understand the 
 illusive nature of wealth. To them the wealth of 
 the country is a vast treasure-house protected by 
 a feeble minority of the population, who could 
 easily be overpowered by the majority and the 
 aforesaid wealth appropriated. Let us suppose 
 that the mansion of a millionaire were to be looted 
 by the mob. How much would they get ? In 
 hard cash, very little. There would be valuable 
 pictures, costly furniture, priceless objects of art 
 and vertu, etc., etc.; but the realizable value of 
 these depends upon the maintenance of a com- 
 petitive system of society. 
 
 They are worth the market value and no more. 
 One rich man may give a fabulous price for a 
 picture, because he has set his mind upon possess- 
 ing it; whilst another rich man may be also eager 
 to secure it, and between the two the price is
 
 SOCIALISTIC FALLACIES. II 
 
 raised very rapidly. Competition fixes the value, 
 but in the hands of the mob this value would 
 disappear; there would be little to divide: wealth 
 would take unto itself wings and lly away. 
 
 In the same manner, if all the wealth in this 
 country were confiscated by Parliament and a 
 Socialist order of government inaugurated, a very 
 large portion of that wealth would disappear and 
 be of no use whatever for carrying on the work of 
 the country and supporting the people. 
 
 Another fallacy embodied in the Socialist creed 
 is that the State can control a business organiza- 
 tion with more efficiency and economy than a 
 private firm. 
 
 There is absolutely no foundation for this belief. 
 What department of the State is not hampered 
 by red tape? In what Government organization 
 are the officials more anxious to anticipate and 
 provide for the wants of the public than would be 
 the owners of a private firm ? The Socialist will 
 be sure to instance the Post Office. But the 
 State did not take the initiative in this matter 
 and inaugurate our postal system to fulfil a public 
 need. The public were being catered for in this 
 matter by private enterprise, but the State stepped 
 in and declared that the right to carry letters was a 
 monopoly of the Duke of York. This is charac- 
 teristic of Government organizations. They dare 
 not face competition with private enterprise. 
 They must have a monopoly or they could not
 
 12 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 live. We are not, therefore, even justified in 
 saying that the carrying of letters by the State 
 is done more economically and efficiently than 
 it could be done by private enterprise. Private 
 enterprise in this matter was arbitrarily extin- 
 guished and given no chance to compete. 
 
 With regard to parcels, however, the case is 
 different. A number of private firms undertake 
 the collection and distribution of these, and their 
 methods compare very favourably with those of 
 the Post Office. At Christmas time the walls of 
 every post office are placarded with frantic appeals 
 to the public to " post early," or their packages 
 may be delayed in transmission. At the same 
 time the private firms foresee the extra strain 
 upon their resources, provide for it, and efficiently 
 carry on their work without any fuss and without 
 any appealing placards. 
 
 The War Office and the Admiralty can certainly 
 not be regarded as economical or efficient institu- 
 tions, and the State administration of the Poor 
 Laws cannot justly be admired for either of these 
 qualities. 
 
 It is against reason and common sense to 
 suppose that the abolition of competition and 
 the substitution of a monopoly will work either 
 for efficiency or economy. 
 
 When two or more private firms are competing 
 for the patronage of the public, then the wants 
 of the public are not only provided for, but must
 
 SOCIALISTIC FALLACIES. I3 
 
 be anticipated by those who control such firms or 
 they will fall behind in the race for public favour. 
 I must now close this chapter on Socialistic 
 Fallacies, not because I have mentioned them 
 all — that would be impossible. The whole Social- 
 istic propaganda is carried on by means of 
 fallacious assumptions. They are all easily ex- 
 posed, but because of their exceeding great number, 
 many of them must escape so far as this book is 
 concerned. The common sense of my readers, 
 however, will easily detect them.
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 
 
 Socialism is very dijfficult to define, because the 
 Socialists themselves are by no means unanimous. 
 To quote the words of the late Lord Salisbury, 
 "Where they are precise, they are not agreed, and 
 where they are agreed, they are not precise." 
 Many people have an idea that Socialism means 
 an equal division of the wealth of the nation 
 amongst the people of the nation; that at some 
 given time we should all make a fresh start 
 possessed of the same amount of money. But, 
 whatever else Socialism may mean, it certainly 
 does not mean that, but something very different. 
 If an equal division of the wealth of the country 
 were made to-day, it would be very unequally 
 divided by to-morrow. 
 
 Although there is much difference of opinion 
 among Socialist writers, the vast majority advocate 
 the abolition of private property and the sub- 
 stitution of State ownership. They believe that 
 the widespread poverty and intense suffering which 
 undoubtedly exist to-day are attributable to the 
 tyrannical despotism and insatiable greed of land- 
 owners and capitalists. Prince Krapotkin, a 
 
 14 
 
 I
 
 WHAT IS SOCIALISM ? 15 
 
 Russian Socialist, put the case as follows: — 
 "A feeble minority lays claim to the bulk of the 
 national wealth; has town and country houses 
 built for itself, and accumulates in banks the coin, 
 notes, and documents of all sorts which represent 
 the wealth produced by labour. All this we must 
 seize, and by one and the same blow we shall set 
 free the unhappy peasant whose plot of ground is 
 burdened by a mortgage, the small shopkeeper 
 who lives in a constant dread of bankruptcy, and 
 a wretched crowd of persons who have not bread 
 enough for the morrow." 
 
 "We must clearly see that private property is a 
 conscious or an unconscious theft of that which 
 belongs to all, and we must be prepared to seize 
 all with alacrity for the common use and benefit." 
 In a small pamphlet, entitled "The Manifesto of 
 the Socialist League," Messrs. Wm. Morris and 
 E. Belfort Bax say, "The land, the capital, the 
 machinery, factories, workshops, stores, means of 
 transit, mines, banking, all weans oj production and 
 distrihition of wealth must be declared and treated 
 as the common property of all." 
 
 The Social Democratic Federation (England) 
 states its objects to be: — 
 
 "The Socialization of the means of production, 
 distribution and exchange to be controlled by a 
 democratic State in the interests of the entire 
 community, and the complete emancipation of 
 labour from the domination of capitalization and
 
 l6 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 landlordism, with the establishment of social and 
 economic equality between the sexes." 
 
 In the Fabian Essays it is shortly stated that 
 Socialism is "the common holding of the means 
 of production and exchange, and the holding of 
 them for the equal benefit of all." 
 
 Some Socialists endeavour to draw a distinction 
 between capital and wealth. Mrs. Besant defines 
 wealth as "the accumulated, unconsumed result of 
 labour applied to raw material so long as it is not 
 attempted to utilize such result for profit." 
 
 As soon as it is used for purposes of profit, it 
 becomes capital and would belong to the State. 
 
 For example, suppose — 
 
 (i) A man spent every penny of his income. 
 He would be secure from molestation. 
 
 (2) He saved ten pounds per year and 
 treasured it up in an old stocking. That 
 would be wealth, and he would be per- 
 fectly justified in keeping it. 
 
 (3) He invested the ten pounds in oranges 
 
 and paid another man to hawk them. 
 His wealth would be turned into capital 
 because it was utilized for profit, and his 
 stock of oranges would be liable to con- 
 fiscation by the State. However, Mrs. 
 Besant is not in accord with the main 
 body of Socialist opinion, and we need 
 not consider her ideas at length. 
 Taking into consideration the opinions of the 
 
 !
 
 WHAT IS SOCIALISM ? I7 
 
 best known writers upon the subject, I should 
 define Socialism as being — " The abolition of 
 private propcrt}' in land, raw material, instruments 
 of production, funded capital, etc. All these would 
 belong to the State, which would also direct all 
 labour and compel the equitable distribution of 
 the produce of such labour." 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, that Socialism means 
 a revolution — either peaceful or otherwise. It 
 proposes altogether to abolish the existing com- 
 petitive system of society, and to replace it by an 
 altogether new and untried system. In view of 
 this speculative and experimental character of 
 Socialism, cautious politicians are very much in- 
 clined to cheerfully and courageously " bear the ills 
 we have than fly to others which we know not of." 
 
 One thing is certain. Socialism cannot be re- 
 garded as scientific. Any political system to be scien- 
 tific must be based upon recognized natural laws. 
 
 Socialists altogether deny that any material 
 laws govern the production and distribution of 
 wealth, and propose to control these functions by 
 arbitrary State regulations. If there is no such 
 natural law, then Socialism is unscientific because 
 it cannot be based upon science. If, on the other 
 hand, a natural law exists which governs the 
 production and distribution of wealth, then Social- 
 ism is unscientific because it refuses to recognize 
 such law. Upon which horn of this dilemma will 
 Socialists impale themselves?
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. 
 
 Is Socialism practical ? If the vast majority of 
 the electors cast their votes in favour of Socialism, 
 and a government were returned to power pledged 
 to abolish individualism and to set up a Socialist 
 State, would they be able to overcome the host of 
 practical difficulties which would beset their path ? 
 I think not. But let us consider some of these 
 difficulties. In the first place, the Socialist dis- 
 plays a total ignorance of human nature. Think 
 what a vast and complex machine the Socialist 
 State would be. It would be necessary in order 
 to ensure smooth working that every man should 
 behave exactly as the State officials had calculated 
 that he would behave. Any irregularity would 
 upset their plans and cause confusion. 
 
 And this is exactly where Socialism would fail. 
 Steel and iron are simpler things than flesh and 
 blood. You may foretell with practical certainty 
 the action of a machine, but it is impossible to 
 foretell with any degree of accuracy a man's action 
 
 in any conceivable circumstances. If men and 
 
 i8
 
 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. I9 
 
 women were so many automata, then the case 
 would be different, but, as it is, the very uncer- 
 tainty of human action would be an insuperable 
 barrier to the smooth working of a Socialist mode 
 of government. 
 
 Seeing that the State would control both pro- 
 duction and distribution, how would it regulate 
 the supply of the different commodities which 
 the public would desire ? At present the supply 
 adjusts itself to the demand. This is a natural 
 law. The producer is controlled by the consumer. 
 
 Whatever goods arc demanded by the consumer 
 the producer will supply. Nay, he will go further 
 than this, for the producers will compete amongst 
 themselves to anticipate the demand, and because 
 of this competition the consumer benefits. 
 
 Whenever the demand for any particular com- 
 modity is greater or less than the average, the 
 supply increases or decreases accordingly. How 
 does a bootmaker, for example, know how many 
 pairs of boots to make every week ? He is guided 
 by the number he sold during the previous week, 
 by his knowledge of the locality, and by his ex- 
 perience that at certain times of the year the 
 demand for his goods increases or decreases. He 
 uses his judgment and gains or loses as his judg- 
 ment proves accurate or otherwise. 
 
 But how would the demand be ascertained in a 
 Socialist community? Schaffle says, "by con- 
 tinuous official returns furnished by the managers
 
 20 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 and overseers of the selling and producing depart- 
 ments." 
 
 How these officials would have to bestir them- 
 selves. How they would cudgel their brains to 
 think out new designs for suitings which might 
 please the taste of the public. What an uproar 
 would take place in the ironmongery department 
 when the officials vied with one another to pro- 
 duce a more effective potato peeler or a more 
 seethetic lamp shade. 
 
 The scene in the millinery and dressmaking 
 department would certainly beggar description. 
 In all departments what competition there would 
 be amongst the officials to provide for, and even 
 to anticipate, the wishes of the public. To any- 
 one who has had experience of State officials I 
 would put the question, " Is it likely ? " 
 
 I have had the experience of walking into a 
 chemist's shop which was also licensed as a post- 
 office. The proprietor hurried to greet me under 
 the impression that I was a likely purchaser of his 
 famous hair restorer, corn cure, pink pill, or some 
 article upon which he would realize a reasonable 
 profit. His face was wreathed in smiles which 
 vanished like snowflakes before the sun when I 
 meekly requested him to supply me with a postage 
 stamp. This is human nature. The private 
 trader strenuously endeavours to please the public 
 because his own livelihood depends upon the 
 success of his efforts. But these high and mighty
 
 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. 21 
 
 officials, "the managers and overseers of the 
 selling and producing departments," would they 
 be so anxious to meet the public needs? Again I 
 say, "not likely." Under a competitive system, 
 if I do not get satisfied by one shopkeeper, I 
 transfer my custom to his rival. The shopkeeper 
 knows this, and endeavours to meet my wishes. 
 But when the State is the only shopkeeper, we 
 shall have to be content with the commodities 
 supplied by the State, or be satisfied by the 
 pleasing alternative, we can do without. Certainly ! 
 and under Socialism we should often have to. 
 The inevitable result would be that the State would 
 never seriously try to meet the wishes of the con- 
 sumers. The Clothing Department would bring 
 out a nice, neat uniform, and we should have to 
 wear that, whether we liked it or not. It would 
 be so much easier for the Government officials, so 
 why should we grumble. The Grocery Depart- 
 ment would keep certain articles of diet, and we 
 should have to subsist upon those whether they 
 were palatable or otherwise. All departments 
 would have their stock list of commodities, and 
 the officials would care very little about the public 
 demand for other articles. If the consumers of 
 this country are foolish enough to throw away 
 their privilege of transferring their custom from 
 one trader to another when the first cannot or 
 will not supply their demands, and to trust them- 
 selves to the tender mercies of a State Monopoly
 
 22 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 without any alternative, then they will richly 
 deserve all they will get. Under Socialism it will 
 be a case of "shut your eyes and open your mouth, 
 and see what your dear grandmother, the State, 
 sends you." 
 
 Another difficulty arises. By what method 
 would the different classes of work be assigned to 
 the individual workers? At present the State is 
 not burdened by the responsibility of finding 
 individual employment. Each worker decides 
 for himself and has to face the consequences. He 
 is largely influenced in his decision by the very 
 practical question, "In what particular sphere of 
 labour shall I be most likely to obtain permanent 
 employment?" It is not so much a question of 
 what class of work would I prefer, but in what 
 department of industry can I most readily find 
 employment and earn a livelihood? If it were a 
 question of choice, how many people would 
 perform unskilled labour and devote themselves 
 to physical work of a laborious and exhausting 
 nature, when they could remain clean and well- 
 dressed and occupy themselves with lighter tasks? 
 Now, it is not what we should like, but what we 
 can get. But under Socialism the work of each 
 individual would be assigned to him by the 
 State. 
 
 What a task for any Government to face. 
 What a clamour and uproar there would be. 
 Everybody would have as good a right as anybody
 
 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. 23 
 
 else to the lighter and pleasanter employments, 
 and there would be a general refusal to do the 
 rougher physical work. Who would be scavengers 
 or navvies when they could be town clerks, artists, 
 or judges? And yet the rougher work must be 
 done. Who is to do it? Would the majority 
 combine and compel any particular class to do it? 
 No! says the Socialist, "force would not be 
 necessary. We should hold out shorter hours as 
 an inducement. Those engaged on laborious 
 tasks would not be required to work so long as 
 others who were more pleasantly employed." If 
 I know anything of human nature — and I think I 
 do — I can state with confidence that the induce- 
 ment would be altogether inadequate. Remember 
 that the great majority who earn their living by 
 physical labour would certainly wish to change, 
 whilst those who now have light and pleasant 
 employment would not wish to change. It is 
 obvious that the Socialist Government at the very 
 commencement of its task of industrial organization 
 would have to coerce the workers to accept their 
 appointed tasks. This would breed discontent, 
 and thus would the seeds of revolution be sown. 
 
 And what about those who refused to work at 
 all, either from sheer laziness or because they were 
 dissatisfied with the task assigned to them ? Under 
 Individualism they would be spurred on by the 
 necessity of obtaining bread. If they did not 
 work they would starve, except in the case of
 
 24 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 those whose forefathers had accumulated sufficient 
 wealth to maintain them without labour. 
 
 How would it be under Socialism? Can the 
 Socialists find a more effectual inducement to 
 labour than fear of starvation? If not, then where 
 is the advantage of their system in this respect? 
 If they have an alternative, it must necessarily be 
 direct coercion, which would be found impractic- 
 able. 
 
 Then again, suppose that the recruiting for the 
 great industrial armies was satisfactorily com- 
 pleted, and every state department fully supplied 
 with the necessary workpeople. Where would 
 the State find the men of organizing power and 
 directive ability to supervise and control the 
 labourers? 
 
 Unless the work of production and distribution 
 was directed as efficiently by State officials as it 
 is at present by private enterprise, there would 
 be a great falling off in the volume of national 
 production. How would the State pick out the 
 men who were not only willing but able efficiently 
 to direct the labour of the nation ? And when 
 it had found them, how would it induce them to 
 use their capacity for business organization and 
 to labour in the service of the State as arduously 
 as they do now for themselves ? 
 
 Clearly it would be a short way out of the 
 difficulty if those men who have proved their 
 capacity by successfully managing large business
 
 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. 25 
 
 concerns under private enterprise should be 
 elected as State officials to carry out the same 
 duties. But would they be elected, and if elected, 
 would they act ? 
 
 They would be by no means certain of election. 
 It is natural for every man to believe that, given 
 a fair chance, he could manage the business 
 concerns of Rockfeller, Carnegie, or Lipton as 
 well as they do themselves. Believing this, he 
 would try to secure election as a director of 
 labour, and as the election would be by the votes 
 of the majority, who are not capable of intelli- 
 gently weighing one man's qualifications against 
 those of another as regards directive business 
 ability, the election would be a mere farce. The 
 best man would have very little chance of selec- 
 tion, and the whole business might just as well 
 be settled by drawing lots. But let us suppose 
 that by some chance the State supervisors of 
 labour were elected from the ranks of our success- 
 ful business men, would they accept the position 
 and put forth all their energies and use all their 
 abilities to increase the production of different 
 State departments just as they would if these 
 State departments were their own private business 
 concerns ? I think not. There would not be 
 sufficient inducement for them to do so. At 
 present they are induced to labour because labour 
 brings with it pecuniary profit for themselves. 
 By the exercise of their abilities they accumulate
 
 26 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 wealth, which also means power, social position, 
 luxury, and enjoyment, and the ability to provide 
 the means for their descendants to live in a similar 
 manner. 
 
 This would be impossible under Socialism, and, 
 therefore, it is not reasonable to suppose that 
 those who possess exceptional business abilities 
 would exercise them to the same extent on behalf 
 of the State as they do now for their own private 
 profit. Thus we can take it for granted that 
 under Socialism there would be a serious falling 
 off in the productive power of the nation as 
 compared with our present competitive system. 
 Let me re-state briefly my reasons for this 
 assertion. 
 
 First, it is a matter of the highest importance 
 that the best directive ability of the nation should 
 direct the efforts of the labourers; for labour un- 
 directed or badly directed means a great loss of 
 productive power. No one will seriously dispute 
 this. Secondly, the best directive ability of the 
 nation will not be allowed to direct the efforts 
 of the labourers under Socialism, and, if allowed, 
 would not consent in the absence of any reason- 
 able inducement. It is perfectly certain that 
 when labour directors were elected some glib 
 demagogue or some popular numskull would 
 obtain the votes of the crowd as against an un- 
 popular man of ability who had nothing but his 
 ability to recommend him. Thus at the very
 
 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. ^^ 
 
 outset the Socialist state would be handicapped. 
 Its vast industrial armies would be badly officered, 
 and this would be as disastrous in commercial 
 matters as it is in military matters. 
 
 When the State had assigned each individual 
 worker his appointed task, and also elected super- 
 visors to direct the labourers, another difficulty 
 would arise. How are the labourers to be re- 
 warded ? Upon this question Socialists them- 
 selves are at variance. The labourers could be 
 rewarded in three different ways: — 
 (i) According to ability. 
 
 (2) According to need. 
 
 (3) Equally. 
 
 The first method would be fair if those who 
 had to determine the ability displayed were 
 capable and unprejudiced, but as they will be 
 elected by the votes of the majority who are 
 not certain to detect capacity they may be in- 
 capable. They are certain to be prejudiced in 
 favour of those who voted for them and against 
 those who voted for rival candidates. 
 
 The second and third methods are manifestly 
 unfair. Each method is advocated strenuously 
 by various schools of Socialists. Which will be 
 adopted ? Each method would certainly breed 
 discontent among the workers. According to the 
 first method, the judges would have to compute 
 the value of each labourer's work and arbitrarily 
 fix his remuneration. It is not at all likely that
 
 28 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 their decisions would give any measure of satis- 
 faction. In every workshop the great majority of 
 the workers would honestly believe that their 
 services were worth as much to the State as 
 those of their more capable comrades who 
 produced more and were, therefore, paid more. 
 There would be discontent if the judges were 
 absolutely capable and impartial, but as they 
 are not likely to be either, and would be almost 
 certain to make blunders and commit acts of 
 favouritism, the discontent would be both active 
 and widespread. 
 
 The second method — payment according to 
 need without regard to the value of the labourers' 
 work — is advocated by Dr. Schaffle and the 
 German Social Democrats, but the majority of 
 English Socialists are against him. 
 
 It would be almost impossible to determine the 
 " reasonable needs " of any labourer, and the 
 judges who had to make the decision would have 
 an unenviable task. However well they fulfilled 
 it, they could not hope to give satisfaction. Each 
 man naturally magnifies his needs. If honestly 
 carried out, this method would allot larger in- 
 comes to old and feeble workers than to young 
 and capable ones, which would be manifestly 
 absurd. Those who produced least would get 
 most. This method might work well in the topsy- 
 turvy Utopia of a comic opera, but could not be 
 carried out ia real life. The Socialist State would 
 
 /
 
 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. 2g 
 
 take the shortest way out of the difficulty and 
 reward everybody equally, whether their services 
 to the Slate were great or small. This would 
 certainly lead to a great falling off in the national 
 production of wealth. Uniformity of payment 
 would mean, and always has meant, competition 
 in idleness. There would be no incentive for the 
 industrious and capable worker to put forth his 
 best efforts, for however hard and intelligently he 
 worked, he would get the same reward as the 
 laziest and most ignorant of his comrades. Piece 
 work is the fairest, and promotes industry and 
 intelligence and increased production, whilst equal 
 payments mean a general slackening of effort. 
 Under Socialism, piece work would be impossible, 
 and I must again repeat that the first result of 
 the Socialization of labour would be a great falling 
 off in the national production of wealth. 
 
 Certainly it does not seem a bright prospect for 
 the worker who demands a greater share of the 
 national wealth. Adopt Socialism, which will 
 seriously lessen production, and then the labourer 
 will get more, is neither sound logic or common 
 sense, I want the man in the street to realize 
 the fallacious nature of the promises which the 
 Socialist holds out to him. They promise a great 
 deal, but in view of the difficulties pointed out, 
 how are they going to fulfil those promises ? 
 
 I will mention one more difficulty, and then I 
 must bring this chapter to a close. The Socialists 
 
 3
 
 30 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 propose to abolish the coinage. Their reason is 
 obvious. If monc}^ or its equivalent, were allowed 
 to circulate, the capitalist system would soon begin 
 to rear its head again. At the end of the first 
 week the thrifty would have saved part of their 
 wages; the improvident would have spent all, and 
 perhaps borrowed some. The lazy would have 
 paid the industrious for labour performed. All 
 sorts of commodities would be bought and sold, 
 personal property recognized once more, and 
 Socialism hopelessly undermined. 
 
 No payments would be made in money, but 
 entirely in certificates of labour time. Karl Marx 
 — the pioneer of scientific Socialism — has estimated 
 the price of a hectolitre of wheat at five days of 
 socially determined labour, supposing everybody 
 worked eight hours per day. 
 
 This reminds me of a village genius who calmly 
 announced to the local community that he had 
 calculated the distance between the earth and the 
 moon to be one hundred and twenty-eight million 
 miles. When asked how he arrived at the figures, 
 he stated that he guessed a quarter the distance, 
 and then multiplied it by four. I have no means 
 of checking Marx's estimate, but even supposing 
 it to be correct, how could such a cumbersome 
 system be carried out ? 
 
 It would be necessary to know the average 
 number of hours needed to produce a given 
 quantity of any given commodity. Will any
 
 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. 3I 
 
 enthusiastic Socialist of a mathematical turn of 
 mind tell me how many days of how many hours 
 per day it takes to produce a ton of turnips or a 
 stack of hay ? How many hours per day and how 
 many days does it take to prepare a bullock or a 
 sheep for the market ? How many hours per day 
 should Millais work to produce an Academy 
 picture, or Marconi to complete his invention of 
 wireless telegraphy ? How could we ascertain the 
 relative value of an hour in a sailor's working day 
 compared with an hour worked by a policeman, a 
 gas inspector, a town clerk, or a shop assistant ? 
 
 It would be an impossible task to construct such 
 an equation of labour time as would bring out a 
 unit of labour that would be even approximately 
 uniform. 
 
 The whole system of State bookkeeping would 
 be rendered exceedingly difficult. The certificate 
 of labour time would have to be presented by the 
 workers to the salesmen at the State Stores, and 
 when a purchase was made the certificate would 
 be endorsed to the effect that commodities equi- 
 valent to so much labour had been duly delivered 
 to the worker. Thus, suppose a full week's 
 work to consist of forty hours, the labourer who 
 had put in full time would set out on Saturday 
 on a shopping expedition armed with this certi- 
 ficate for forty hours. He might call at the 
 butcher's department and spend two and a-half 
 hours on pork for Sunday's dinner, whilst at the
 
 32 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 grocer's he might purchase half an hour's worth 
 of butter and twenty minutes worth of cheese. 
 Perhaps he might enjoy the luxury of a shave at 
 the State barbers, and pay ten minutes for that. 
 
 The children would clamour for thirty seconds' 
 worth of toffee or ice cream, or if they were good 
 and their father indulgent, he might even spend 
 a full minute upon these luxuries. 
 
 Whatever the number of his purchases, they 
 must be endorsed upon his certificate of labour 
 time. What a large certificate it would have to 
 be, and how nice and clean it would look after it 
 returned from its travels, and perhaps the last ten 
 minutes unexpended or reserved for the collection 
 in church or chapel. How ridiculous it sounds. 
 Certainly it does, because it is ridiculous, and, 
 moreover, the best laid schemes of the cleverest 
 men are equally ridiculous when they are arbitrarily 
 devised to take the place of those natural laws 
 which govern the civilized community. 
 
 Many other difficulties in the way of Socialism 
 will suggest themselves to you, but I need not 
 prolong this chapter further. " The strength of a 
 chain is the strength of its weakest link." Any 
 one of the difficulties I have mentioned will prove 
 an insuperable barrier to a Socialistic State. 
 
 ^ OlCA!
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 SOCIALISM NO NEW THING. 
 
 The Socialists are now claiming to be the only 
 true progressive party in the State, and they dub 
 the other great historic parties re-actionary and 
 non-progressive. 
 
 This is amusing because Socialism is not pro- 
 gressive but retrogressive. The present competi- 
 tive system of Society has been slowly evolved in 
 accordance with natural laws. The State of 
 Society from which we have gradually emerged 
 was Socialistic. History will support me in this 
 statement. Most savage tribes were Socialists. 
 They had their goods in common, and the produce 
 of the chase was divided amongst the whole tribe. 
 As they became more ingenious and the first 
 approach to civilization commenced, these tribes 
 recognized that as the result of the chase was 
 uncertain, it would be a good idea to domesticate 
 a number of animals, so that they could readily be 
 slaughtered for food when the necessities of the 
 tribe demanded it. Afterwards they realized that it 
 would be desirable to cultivate the soil. This was 
 done also, and it was first done on Socialistic lines 
 
 33
 
 34 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 by the community for the community. It was 
 everybody's business and nobody's business. How- 
 ever, the light was spreading and civiHzation 
 advancing. It became plain even to the untutored 
 savage that the land would be cultivated better 
 and the output of the soil would be greater if it 
 belonged to somebody. They saw also that the 
 domestic animals would thrive better and be 
 looked after better if they also belonged to some- 
 body. It was a startling fact, but nevertheless 
 true, and it soon became possible for individual 
 members of the tribe to possess each one his little 
 plot of land and his small herd of cattle. 
 
 When this truth was recognized and acted upon, 
 civilization advanced rapidly. Now, remember 
 this fact, for it is a fact, a recognition of the rights of 
 private property is a fundamental necessity in any 
 civilized society. Where the rights of private 
 property have been most efficiently protected by 
 the State and most jealously safeguarded by the 
 individual, civilization has advanced most rapidly. 
 The most progressive communities to-day are those 
 in which these conditions obtain, whilst the most 
 backward and uncivilized communities are those 
 in which least regard is paid to the rights of the 
 individual. This is not merely a coincidence; it 
 is natural and inevitable. A large number of 
 Socialistic experiments have been tried. Numbers 
 of enthusiasts have banded themselves together 
 and formed Socialist communities. Of most of
 
 SOCIALISM NO NEW THING. 35 
 
 these experiments it may be said that where they 
 failed they succeeded, but where they succeeded 
 they failed. This is paradoxical but true. Where 
 a Socialist community was small, and each in- 
 dividual worker could readily appreciate the fact 
 that by labouring for the community with all his 
 energy he was also benefiting himself, and that 
 he profited by the labour of others, just as others 
 profited by his labour — then to some extent the 
 experiment was successful. But if a Socialist 
 community does not add to its numbers, it will 
 gradually dwindle and die. Where, however, 
 these communities grew in numbers, the individual 
 worker lost sight of any personal benefit from his 
 labours, and became possessed of the idea that he 
 was working solely for others, many of them lazy 
 or incapable, and that his industry was making up 
 for their deficiencies, although he himself derived 
 no greater reward. Naturally, then, he slackened 
 his efforts and the community was doomed. 
 Where these communities did not grow — i.e., 
 where they failed — they to some extent succeeded. 
 Where they did grow — i.e., where they succeeded 
 — they failed, as a majority became lazy and 
 thriftless. This w as a perfectly natural result, and 
 is not to be wondered at ; but does it not prove 
 that Socialism in itself carries with it the germ of 
 failure? It is inherent to the system. In 1848 
 Louis Blanc conducted a great Socialist experi- 
 ment in Paris. He gathered together fifteen
 
 36 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 hundred tailors in the H6tel Clichy, which was 
 converted from a debtors' gaol into a great 
 national tailors' shop. The Government gave their 
 practical sympathy to the undertaking. They made 
 the building suitable for the purpose without 
 charge. They demanded no rent, they furnished 
 the capital without interest, and gave an order to 
 commence with for twenty-five thousand uniforms 
 for the National Guard, to be followed by more 
 for the Garde Mobile, and then others for the 
 regular troops. Surely these w^ere extremely 
 favourable conditions, and yet the experiment 
 failed. The contract price was eleven francs for 
 each uniform. It was decided to pay each worker 
 two francs per day until the contract was com- 
 pleted, and the Government advanced the money 
 for this purpose. Upon the delivery of the uni- 
 forms, the Government were immediately to pay 
 the contract price, less the amount advanced in 
 order to pay the men two francs per day. After 
 deducting the amount thus paid to each worker for 
 subsistence the balance was to be divided. But 
 alas ! there was no balance. The contract took 
 so long to complete, that the men had received — 
 even at the low rate of two francs per day — more 
 than the contract price. The result was a loss. 
 The outcome of this experiment surely shows that 
 equal reward for unequal labour is neither just nor 
 profitable. Each unit in this army of fifteen 
 hundred tailors felt that even if he worked his
 
 SOCIALISM NO NEW THING. 37 
 
 hardest, the result would not come in the form of 
 profit for himself, but would be spread over the 
 whole of his co-workers. And this was not a 
 sufficient incentive to induce energetic labour. 
 The same result would take place in any com- 
 munity large or small, in a private concern or in a 
 State workshop if the system of uniformity of 
 payment, irrespective of the value of service 
 rendered, were adopted. The industrious workman 
 will not put forth his best efforts when the man 
 who works by his side does far less work, and yet 
 receives the same rate of pay. Where payment is 
 by results, the best workman gets the best bargain; 
 he earns most, and can save money. Where pay- 
 ment is equal and work unequal the worst work- 
 man gets the best bargain. He does least, and yet 
 gets as much as anybody else. Robert Owen 
 organized a Socialist community at Yellow Springs, 
 U.S.A., and the majority of its members belonged 
 to a superior class, but even Owen's enthusiasm 
 and genius could not avert failure. One of the 
 members of this community, in stating the causes 
 of its failure, says : " The industrious, the skilful, 
 and the strong saw the products of their labour 
 enjoyed by the indolent, the unskilled, and the 
 improvident, and self-love rose against benevo- 
 lence. A band of musicians insisted that their 
 brassy harmony was as necessary to the common 
 happiness as bread and meat, and declined to 
 enter the harvest-field or the workshop. A 
 
 400018
 
 38 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 lecturer on natural science insisted upon talking 
 whilst others worked. Mechanics whose day's 
 labour brought two dollars into the common stock 
 insisted that they should in justice work only half 
 as long as the agriculturist whose day's work 
 brought only one." 
 
 History tells us of numerous Socialist com- 
 munities which have been formed and afterwards 
 dissolved. Sometimes they flourished for a while, 
 but in those cases it was owing to the members 
 of the community being united by some strong 
 religious belief which increased their ardour and 
 promoted enthusiasm. The small Utopias have 
 been failures. The larger they grew, the greater 
 and the more certain was that failure. And yet 
 the Socialist argues that the principles which 
 spelt ruin on a small scale would mean wealth 
 and prosperity if tried on a large scale by a com- 
 munity, which should include the entire nation. 
 
 You take a certain medicine and find that your 
 malady increases instead of decreases, but the 
 Socialist argues that if you take a larger quantity 
 of Ihe same drug which has already half-poisoned 
 you, you will be perfectly well.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 HOW IS A SOCIALIST STATE TO BE REALIZED ? 
 
 Are the landlords and capitalists to be forcibly 
 deprived of their property by Act of Parliament ? 
 Will the State buy their property, or will the 
 State gradually make the holding of private pro- 
 perty so onerous and unprofitable that nobody 
 will want it ? Each method is advocated by 
 different Socialist writers and speakers. 
 
 Let us consider each method in turn. Suppose 
 a law were to be passed through both Houses of 
 Parliament providing that upon a certain definite 
 date all private property was to be confiscated 
 for State purposes, what would be the result ? 
 Most certainly bloodshed and armed revolution. 
 As I pointed out in a previous chapter, such a 
 measure would not only affect the wealthy and 
 leisured classes, but all the more thrifty and 
 industrious working men, and those who were 
 members of trades unions, co-operative societies, 
 benefit societies, building societies, etc., as well 
 as the man who owned a small allotment or had 
 saved up sufficient to purchase the house in which 
 he lived. All these would fiercely resent a 
 
 39
 
 40 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 measure which robbed them of the fruits of their 
 thrift and industry for the benefit of the idle or 
 incapable, and with the support of their friends 
 they would resolutely defend their own. And 
 they would be right. Parliament may have the 
 power to pass such a measure, but it certainly 
 has no moral right to do so, and this plan would 
 be found impossible. 
 
 Shall the State buy out the landlords and 
 capitalists ? If so, at what price ? The only 
 fair price would be the market price. The market 
 price is the sum which the property — whether 
 land, buildings, stocks or shares, machinery, or 
 any other form of property, would fetch in the 
 open market. In order to make such a large 
 purchase the State would have to borrow the 
 money, and for such a purpose would have to 
 pay four or five per cent, interest at least. 
 
 In that case the revenue from the property 
 would not cover the interest and the enormous 
 expenses of collection. 
 
 Take the case of land and buildings. Agricul- 
 tural land in England only brings in a return 
 on an average of about two and a half per cent., 
 and freehold dwelling-houses not more than five 
 or six per cent, on an average. The State would 
 have to collect all rents, and out of the rental 
 pay the enormous army of official rent collectors, 
 keep ther property in repair, and also pay interest 
 on the money borrowed for purchasing the pro-
 
 HOW IS A SOCIALIST STATE TO BE REALIZED? 4I 
 
 perty. This would more than absorb the rental, 
 and therefore the State would lose, and not gain, 
 by the bargain. 
 
 We must remember that a great number of 
 landlords only make their investments profitable 
 by collecting rents and looking after their property 
 themselves. They would not give their services 
 to the State, but would have to be replaced by 
 expensive and far less efficient State officials. 
 The mills, warehouses, and machinery purchased 
 by the State could not be worked by the State 
 as efficiently as they are carried on by private 
 enterprise, and here also there would certainly 
 be a loss. I think, therefore, we may safely 
 dismiss this second method of bringing about 
 State Socialism as impracticable. 
 
 The third method is to gradually raise the 
 taxes on the income from all private property 
 until they equal the revenue. The landlord 
 would find that he merely collected his rents 
 and had to pay them over to the State in the 
 shape of taxes, without having a penny left for 
 himself. He would therefore be glad to make 
 over his property to the State without any 
 purchase price. 
 
 The investor in stocks and shares would at 
 last find that his income-tax on these investments 
 was equal to his dividends, and he also would 
 be glad to get rid of his property. 
 
 How beautifully ingenious, how perfectly fair.
 
 42 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 Observe, my friends, there would be no robbery 
 about this method. The property owner would 
 gladly give up his property voluntarily because 
 of the onerous taxation upon it. Who said 
 robbery ? Who whispered a more polite term — 
 confiscation ? "A rose by any other name would 
 smell as sweet," and robbery by the State or 
 by the individual, dignified by a less offensive 
 title, would still be robbery just the same, and 
 I don't believe " the man in the street " will 
 uphold it. 
 
 But softly! there is yet another plan, more 
 insidious, more plausible, by which the Socialists 
 hope to attain their ends. They are gradually 
 attaining their objects without the majority of 
 the electors being aware of it. They are attack- 
 ing the municipalities. In almost every town or 
 city council election there are Socialist candidates 
 who seek election upon the municipal body in 
 order to propagate their creed. 
 
 Many cities have municipalized the gas and 
 water supply, and carry on the tramways with 
 more or less success, and these are adduced by the 
 SociaHst as successful experiments on Socialist 
 lines. If gas, water, and trams can be managed 
 by the municipality, then why not coal, boots, 
 milk, clothes, dwelling-houses, toffee-shops, and 
 everything else. 
 
 When all industries in a certain town or city 
 have been taken over by the municipality, and
 
 HOW IS A SOCIALIST STATE TO BE REALIZED? 43 
 
 every citizen is an employee of the Corporation, 
 why not hand over everything to the Imperial 
 Parliament at Westminster, and hey! presto! 
 before you know where you are, State Socialism 
 will be in full swing. 
 
 This is the programme, then. What has the 
 municipal elector to say to it ? In the first place, 
 gas, water, and tramway undertakings are not 
 managed as successfully as they might be by the 
 various municipal corporations who have taken 
 over their control. The London County Council 
 may be cited as an example of how not to do it, 
 and the electorate pronounced very decisively 
 against their Socialistic experiments. Assuming 
 (and it is a very large assumption) that Town or 
 City Councils can carry on the gas, water, and 
 tramway undertakings more successfully than they 
 could be managed by private enterprise, it is no 
 argument for Socialism, and the management of 
 these undertakings by the corporate authorities is 
 no object lesson in Socialism. These undertakings 
 are and must of necessity be monopolies. They 
 were private monopolies before they were taken 
 over by the municipalities, and they existed as a 
 result of private and not municipal enterprise. If 
 we had waited for the municipalities to commence 
 these undertakings and bring them to their present 
 state of efficiency, we should probably have had to 
 wait a long time. Be that as it may, the fact 
 remains that they were monopolies under private
 
 44 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 enterprise, and they remain monopolies when 
 carried on by the various municipal corporations. 
 They are therefore no object lesson in Socialism. 
 To give us such an object lesson the Socialists 
 must point out some business in which several 
 private firms competed to supply the public 
 demand, but which has been municipalized and 
 become a monopoly to the advantage of the public. 
 They must substitute a monopoly for free and 
 open competition, and prove that the public 
 benefit. I defy them to do this. We will suppose, 
 however, that the process of municipalization is 
 allowed to go on. Besides gas, water, trams, etc., 
 we municipalize the coal trade, milk trade, boot 
 trade, and take over the butchers, bakers, grocers, 
 and clothiers' shops, and also all the mills and 
 workshops. The process will not be carried very 
 far before several great dangers to the public 
 welfare will appear. To municipalize these under- 
 takings even gradually and one at a time will cost 
 money. That money must be borrowed by the 
 municipalities who will issue bonds or stock, which 
 will be a charge upon the rates and municipal 
 buildings both as regards principal and interest. 
 
 At one time corporation stocks were looked 
 upon as an absolutely safe investment for trustees 
 and others who were willing to invest money at a 
 low rate of interest in order to obtain absolute 
 security. In proportion as these corporations are 
 ceasing to confine themselves to their legitimate
 
 HO W IS A SOCIALIST STATE TO BE REALIZED ? 45 
 
 business, and are seeking to acquire and carry on 
 hazardous undertakings, this element of security 
 becomes less, and the investor looks with smaller 
 favour upon corporation bonds and stocks. 
 
 As the process of municipalization goes on, as 
 first one trading concern and then another is taken 
 over and managed by the municipality, the in- 
 vestor will demand a higher and yet a higher rate 
 of interest as the security of his investment 
 becomes more questionable. This interest and 
 also periodical repayments of the principal will 
 have to be met out of the rates, and this means 
 heavier rates for the already overburdened rate- 
 payer. 
 
 Heavy rates do not attract capital to any town 
 or city, but rather drive it away. Heavy rates 
 deter the capitalist from commencing business and 
 erecting mills and workshops in any locality where 
 these burdens upon his enterprise exist. This 
 means stagnation in business, and a lack of 
 employment for the working classes. In many 
 localities large business firms have either closed 
 their establishments altogether or transferred some 
 departments to other places where the rates are 
 not so high. Perhaps they have transferred their 
 capital abroad, and are employing foreign work- 
 people. I can give a definite instance of one firm 
 who transferred part of their business to the 
 United States of America. There the different 
 municipal bodies competed with one another to 
 
 4
 
 46 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 induce the firm to erect their mills within their 
 boundaries and to employ their citizens as work- 
 people. In the locality in which the business was 
 eventually commenced, the firm mentioned were 
 exempt from any rates at all for the first seven 
 years. This method encourages the influx of 
 capital, and means steady employment for the 
 working classes. High rates mean business stag- 
 nation and unemployment. Carry on the process 
 of municipalization and increase the rates a little 
 more, and you will kill the goose which lays the 
 golden egg. 
 
 But you may say triumphantly, there is a 
 fallacy in my argument. Why should the rates 
 be increased to pay interest on money borrowed 
 by the municipalities to carry on these trading 
 concerns? Cannot the profits be utilized for this 
 purpose? Well, the profits will be problematical, 
 and should there be any, the Socialist will not 
 allow you to touch them. Consider for a moment 
 what little chance there would be of the muni- 
 cipality taking over any business and making as 
 much profit from it as was formerly made by the 
 owner. Take an engineering establishment, for 
 instance. This business which had formerly been 
 managed by the owner, who devoted his best 
 efforts to developing the business and increasing 
 its profits, would now be controlled by a Corpora- 
 tion Committee of butchers, bakers, and candlestick 
 makers. Is it conceivable that these men would
 
 HOW IS A SOCIALIST STATE TO BE REALIZED? 47 
 
 be able to carry on the engineering business 
 profitably? Of course they would appoint an 
 expert ofBcial as head of the engineering depart- 
 ment, but officials are only human, and it is not 
 likely that any official would devote the time, 
 energy, and skill to the business which it obtained 
 from its former owner. The owner gave his best 
 both of skill and energy, and had his reward in 
 the shape of profit, but the official will not be 
 dependent upon results. Even if there is a loss, 
 his salary will still be paid, for are there not the 
 inexhaustible rates from which to draw? 
 
 Mr. F. W. Jowett, M.P., in a little work entitled 
 The Socialist and the City, says: — "The repre- 
 sentative who poses as a departmental specialist 
 takes away the responsibility from the expert 
 official and is in a privileged position which enables 
 him to carry his own schemes and plans to the 
 exclusion, sometimes, of better ones. ... A 
 builder is the last person who should be appointed 
 chairman of a building committee, and no more 
 unfortunate person could be selected to administer 
 an electricity department than an amateur elec- 
 trician." In other words, the less a committee 
 man knows about his department the better. I 
 suppose that when he has been a member for a 
 few years and picked up a little technical know- 
 ledge, he should be transferred to some other 
 department of whose working he knows nothing, 
 and where his ideal condition of ignorance would
 
 48 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 be most useful. According to Mr. Jovvett, if 
 Corporation trading is to be successful, the 
 building committee should consist of butchers and 
 greengrocers, the electricity committee of worsted 
 spinners and drapers, and the engineering com- 
 mittee of tobacconists and lawyers, whilst the 
 builders, electricians, and engineers could profitably 
 manage a dyehouse or run the municipal milk 
 supply. Mr. Jowett is not quite fair when he 
 talks about the presence upon the electricity 
 committee of an "amateur" electrician. Why 
 should he be an amateur ? Are there no properly 
 qualified men in business as electrical engineers, 
 and may not some of them have an ambition to 
 be members of the City Council? I am inclined 
 to think so, and also that such a man would be 
 invaluable upon the electricity committee, where 
 he would be a salutary check upon that arrogance 
 and carelessness which officials rapidly acquire 
 when they are controlled only by those who must 
 accept all their statements as gospel and endorse 
 all their actions. 
 
 Under municipal Socialism, then, according to 
 Mr. Jowett, Corporation committees would know 
 nothing about the departments committed to their 
 charge, but must leave matters to the expert 
 officials. Is this principle carried out when 
 directors are chosen to serve on large public 
 companies. I think not. It must then be ad- 
 mitted that the profits of municipal departments
 
 HOW IS A SOCIALIST STATE TO BE REALIZED? 49 
 
 are at least problematical. But assuming that 
 profits are made, you must not lay sacrilegious 
 hands upon them in order to relieve the poor, 
 struggling ratepayer. Oh! dear no, that would 
 be against the sacred principles of Socialism. 
 
 What has Mr. Jowett to say upon the matter ? 
 "The Socialist view of the fair way of dealing 
 with profits on trading concerns is to have none 
 — if one may be excused for so paradoxical a 
 statement. Fair wages and good conditions 
 generally for the employed, and selling at cost, 
 so that all may use freely the commodity or 
 service, is the nearest approach to justice in 
 respect to such municipal concerns as are in- 
 capable of being used with equal freedom by all." 
 Strange to say, Mr. Jowett, I do not agree with 
 you. Take the city of Bradford, for instance, and 
 see how the argument works out. The majority 
 of the population live within a mile and a half of 
 the town hall, and use the trams very seldom. Yet 
 these people are helping to pay to carry others 
 to the outskirts of the town at a heavy loss. 
 Some people never use the tramways at all, some 
 use electricity but not gas, many use gas but not 
 electricity. All, however, are ratepayers, directly 
 or indirectly. Surely, then, instead of selling 
 these commodities at cost, it would be more just 
 to make a reasonable profit, which should be used 
 in relief of rates. If the gasworks were to be 
 blown up, who would have to bear the loss ?
 
 50 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 Not simply the gas consumers, but the whole of 
 the ratepayers. If the tramway system broke 
 down, and the electricity works were destroyed 
 by fire, the ratepayers, and not the users of these 
 commodities, would be called upon to make good 
 the loss. The ratepayers take all the risk, and 
 are therefore entitled to some profit. The prin- 
 ciple of the Socialist, however, is to sell at cost 
 and let the ratepayer take care of himself. 
 
 Another grave danger which will menace us 
 during our progress towards municipal Socialism 
 consists of the vast increase in the number of 
 those who are employed by the Corporation. 
 
 In some wards in Bradford at the present time 
 the tramwaymen and other Corporation employees 
 can turn the scale in favour of any candidate 
 they choose. They can, and frequently do this, 
 and their votes are not cast in favour of or 
 against some great principle of municipal policy, 
 but entirely used to secure more favourable con- 
 ditions for themselves — viz., shorter hours of 
 labour, higher wages, etc. 
 
 We can easily see that when the majority of the 
 electors throughout all the wards of the city 
 were in the employ of the Corporation, the muni- 
 cipal elections would not turn upon questions of 
 public policy at all, but entirely upon the wage 
 question. Smith and Jones are opposing candi- 
 dates. Smith promises one shilling per week 
 advance in wages to Corporation employees and
 
 HOW IS A SOCIALIST STATE TO BE REALIZED? 5I 
 
 sixpence per week reduction of rent to tenants 
 in the municipal dwelling-houses. Jones promises 
 two shillings advance in wages and one shilling 
 reduction of rent. Can any reasonable man 
 doubt which of these two candidates would be 
 elected ? The only way out of the danger would 
 be to disfranchise all Corporation employees, 
 which no political party would be bold enough 
 to propose. And so the competition would go 
 on. Higher wages, shorter hours, lower rents, 
 no profits. 
 
 Where is the money to come from ? 
 
 Why, out of the inexhaustible rates, of course! 
 Only one thing will check the triumphant pro- 
 gress of municipal Socialism. We shall be ruined 
 before we get there. Be of good courage, my 
 masters; truly a splendid prospect lies before us. 
 The capitalist and employer of labour may leave 
 us, but we shall all be happy in this Socialist 
 elysium, and make a good living by taking in 
 each other's washing.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY. 
 
 The Englishman's home is his castle. This is 
 a somewhat hackneyed saying, but when it is 
 no longer true this England of ours will not be 
 worth living in. I also venture to think that 
 when the average Englishman realizes how Social- 
 ism would insidiously encroach upon and then 
 finally destroy home and family life, he will have 
 none of it, for he would be surrendering almost 
 sacred privileges, for which no amount of ease 
 and luxury could compensate him. Attack family 
 life and you are attacking the greatest asset of 
 the nation. 
 
 Better is a one-roomed hovel and poverty with 
 that privacy which alone renders family inter- 
 course possible, than a corner in a gilded palace 
 where crowds herd together in piggish promiscuity. 
 And yet Socialism must and does logically mean 
 the destruction of family Hfe, filial love, and 
 marital affection. Under Socialism both sexes 
 will be required for industrial labour, and both 
 will be rewarded equally. Woman will be no 
 longer economically dependent upon man, and 
 
 52
 
 SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY, 53 
 
 will no longer be content to fulfil domestic duties. 
 Woman's sphere is essentially the home, but 
 under Socialism she will take an active place 
 with man in the great industrial armies. Even 
 Socialists themselves sometimes recognize this. 
 Mr. Hobson, in his Evolution of Modern Capitalism, 
 says: "The growth of factory work among women 
 has brought with it inevitably a weakening of 
 home interests and a neglect of home duties. 
 Home work is consciously slighted as secondary 
 in importance and inferior because it brings no 
 wages, and, if not neglected, is performed in a 
 perfunctory manner, which robs it of its grace 
 and value. This narrowing of the home as a 
 place of hurried meals and sleep is, on the whole, 
 the worst injury modern industry has inflicted on 
 our lives, and it is difficult to see how it can be 
 compensated by any increase of material products. 
 Factory life for women, save in extremely rare 
 cases, saps the physical and moral health of the 
 family. The exigencies of factory life are in- 
 consistent with the position of a good mother, a 
 good wife, or the maker of a home." 
 
 Surely if this is true now, when a comparatively 
 small number of wives and mothers are compelled 
 to take part in industrial labour, how much more 
 extensive will be the evil when all are expected to 
 do so. When both father and mother are workers, 
 it will be impossible to maintain the separate 
 family home. Neither will it be possible for
 
 54 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 mothers to give due care to their children, who 
 will, therefore, be handed over to the care of the 
 State as soon as practicable after blith. Yet 
 home duties must be performed, children must be 
 cared for, and the only way out of the difficulty is 
 the institution of State kitchens and dining-rooms 
 and also State nurseries. Home would be simply 
 a place in which to sleep, and even this would 
 in time be found inconvenient. Separate family 
 establishments would be abolished, and the people 
 would be housed in huge barracks where home 
 life would be absolutely impossible. 
 
 All this is a logical and inevitable result of 
 applying Socialistic principles. Do not take my 
 word for it, but allow me to quote from a few 
 Socialist writers. Mr. W. H. Dixon says: — "The 
 very first conception of a Socialistic State is such 
 a relation of the sexes as shall prevent men and 
 women from falling into selfish family groups. 
 Family life is eternally at war with Socialistic life. 
 When you have a private household you must 
 have private property to feed it, hence a com- 
 munity of goods; the first idea of a Socialistic 
 State has been found in every case to imply a 
 community of children and to promote a com- 
 munity of wives." 
 
 Now we must go a step further. Abolition of 
 family life and family intercourse will naturally 
 lead to a re-arrangement with regard to the 
 relationship of the sexes. In most Socialist
 
 SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY. 55 
 
 experiments those who had no children objected 
 very strongly to labour in order to support other 
 people's children. 13Lit under Slate Socialism 
 there will be a community of children, and, as 
 Mr. Dixon points out, this will in the end lead 
 to a community of wives. Upon this point many 
 Socialist writers are extremely outspoken. Herr 
 Bebel says: " Human beings must be in a position 
 to act as freely where their strongest impulse is 
 concerned as in the case of any other natural 
 instinct. The gratification of the sexual impulse 
 is as strictly the personal affair of the individual 
 as the gratification of any other natural instinct. 
 All these checks, all these contradictions to nature 
 in the present position of women have led even 
 persons who are not disposed to accept the further 
 consequences of change in our present Social 
 state to recognize the justifiability of a perfectly 
 free choice in love, and, if need be, of an equally 
 free dissolution of the relationship, without any 
 external hindrance." 
 
 Edward Carpenter writes: — " Perhaps the most 
 decent thing in true marriage would be to say 
 nothing, make no promises either for a year or 
 for a lifetime. ... It would be felt intolerable in 
 any decently constituted society that the old 
 blunderbuss of the law should interfere in the 
 delicate relations of married life." 
 
 Karl Pearsen says: — "In a Socialist form of 
 government the sexual relation would vary accord-
 
 56 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 ing to the feelings and wants of individuals. 
 Children apart, we hold it intolerable that Church 
 or Society should in any official form interfere 
 with lovers." 
 
 Now what is the outcome of this teaching? 
 Stripped of all unnecessary verbiage, it means 
 free love, promiscuous sexual intercourse, the 
 disappearance of the family, and State support 
 for all the unfortunate and unwelcome infants. 
 I want the ** man in the street " to realize clearly 
 and unmistakably the whole meaning of this 
 dirty business. And let it be distinctly understood 
 that when the State takes so much upon itself 
 it will have to take more. As children will be the 
 property of the State, it necessarily follows that 
 the number of births will be regulated by the 
 State. Only the physically fit will be allowed 
 to beget children, as it is not conceivable that 
 the State will cheerfully support the maimed, the 
 halt, and the blind. Those who are physically fit 
 will have no choice in the matter, and let them not 
 think that they will be allowed to select their own 
 mates. Scientific principles will be applied. Men 
 and women will be selected for breeding purposes, 
 just as we now select horses and cattle. This 
 will be a natural and logical consequence of an 
 arbitrary interference by the State. And what 
 does it amount to ? Degradation. A return to 
 animalism. An arrest of a beneficent natural 
 evolution. Naturally children do not belong to
 
 SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY. 57 
 
 the State, but to their parents. Naturally the 
 parents should provide for and have the training 
 of their children. Naturally monogamy has come 
 to be recognized as the ideal relationship of the 
 sexes, and the sacredness and purity of family life 
 has become the best guarantee for the growth of 
 a healthy and vigorous national life. The human 
 race has a nobler, purer, and cleaner destiny than 
 the coarse materialism and gross ideals of a 
 Socialist State. Such a State would die out in 
 a few generations because it is not natural, and 
 any interference with nature brings with it an 
 inevitable punishment. 
 
 A monogamic marriage state is a fundamental 
 necessity to human progress towards a nobler 
 ideal, and if Socialist principles are against this, 
 then so much the worse for those principles, for 
 they cannot possibly endure. Let us make no 
 mistake about it. There is a distinct cleavage 
 between Socialists and Individualists upon this 
 question. According to the Socialist, the family 
 exists for the State ; according to the Individu- 
 alist, the State exists to guard and protect the 
 family. 
 
 Which is right ? The electors of this country 
 will have to answer the question, and I hope they 
 will do so with no uncertain voice. 
 
 We have said very little about the children. 
 What will be their position under Socialism ? 
 Separated from their parents and transferred to
 
 58 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 the State nursery at an early age, there will be 
 no opportunity for the development of parental 
 or filial love. Surely it is no small thing to 
 deprive the parents of parental joys and responsi- 
 bilities; and all the resources of the State cannot 
 atone to the child for the loss of its mother's love. 
 Father, mother, and child — all three must suffer 
 under Socialism, both in loss of happiness and 
 also as regards development of character. The 
 parents would lose the refining influence which 
 follows upon the self-sacrifice and self-restraint 
 which the training of children naturally brings 
 forth. The child in its dawning intelligence can- 
 not prattle to and ask questions of the State 
 nurses. It would have to submit to discipline, it 
 would have to obey rules. All children would 
 have to undergo a stereotyped course of training, 
 and be turned out like bullets from a mould 
 without any individual characteristics. How 
 could the State child know what love meant, and 
 how could anything compensate him for the lack 
 of that knowledge ? God help him ! Surely 
 such an unnatural system can never commend 
 itself to the British people. Away with such 
 teaching ! Surely, as far as the child is con- 
 cerned, the family is better than the herd, the 
 mother is better than the stepmother, and the 
 State official is worst of all. Let the " man in 
 the street" awake from his apathy; the enemy 
 is within our gates. We have to fight against an
 
 SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY. 59 
 
 insidious foe who would destroy the purity of 
 marriage, the sanctity of family life, and would 
 render impossible the exercise of the noblest and 
 the most Godlike instincts which the Almighty 
 has conferred upon us.
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 There is a good deal of loose talk at the present 
 day about Christian Socialism. Many of those 
 who describe themselves as Christian Socialists 
 simply mean that as Christians they recognize 
 that they have a duty to perform towards Society. 
 They wish to leave the community better than 
 they found it, and they are endeavouring to carry 
 out their Christian principles in political matters 
 by supporting Social reforms. But, surely, we 
 can be Christians in politics without calling our- 
 selves Socialists also. If there is to be a party 
 of Christian Socialists, why not also Christian 
 Conservatives and Christian Liberals ? The term 
 " Christian " is altogether out of place. A man 
 may be either Liberal, Conservative, or Socialist, 
 and at the same time be a Christian, Moham- 
 medan, Buddhist, or Theosophist. When a man 
 states himself to be a Christian Socialist, the 
 natural assumption is that he belongs to a sub- 
 division of the Socialist party, the main body 
 of Socialists not being Christians ; or that all 
 
 Socialists are Christians, whilst members of the 
 
 60
 
 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 6l 
 
 other political parties have no right to the title. 
 Some men who are enthusiastic Socialists, but 
 whose religious belief is of a very political nature, 
 are careful to call themselves Christian Socialists 
 in order to attract support from religious people 
 who know very little about Socialism, and who 
 could not support it if they did. 
 
 Thus we have a mean attempt to throw the 
 cloak of religion over what is essentially a political 
 propaganda. Of course, the real Socialists know 
 very well that this so-called Christian Socialism 
 is not Socialism at all, and that when a well- 
 meaning clergyman preaches on the necessity for 
 Christians to fulfil their social obligations and 
 duties, he is simply preaching doctrines which 
 no Christian would deny, and which can be ex- 
 pounded just as enthusiastically without the said 
 clergyman dragging in the word "socialism." 
 
 As a matter of fact. Christian Socialism is not 
 Socialism at all, and those who adopt this title 
 are simply playing into the hands of the real 
 Socialists, who use them as pawns in the political 
 game which they are playing. To my mind, 
 Christianity and Socialism are contradictory 
 terms. To talk about Christian Socialism is just 
 as sensible as talking about dry water or cold 
 heat. The two systems are absolutely opposed 
 to one another. Christianity aims at the re- 
 generation of society through the individual, 
 which is practical, although it may be slow. 
 
 5
 
 62 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 Socialism aims at the regeneration of the in- 
 dividual through society, which is impracticable 
 and ridiculous. The fundamental basis of Chris- 
 tianity is self-sacrifice. The Christian must deny 
 himself for the sake of others, even if he foregoes 
 just rights and privileges. The Socialist preaches 
 to the great majority the gospel of Grab. " Stand 
 up for your rights ! " he cries ; " you are being 
 defrauded of wealth which is justly yours. See 
 that you get your share, even if you have to fight 
 for it." 
 
 Under Socialism only the few would be called 
 upon to exercise the Christian virtue of self- 
 sacrifice in order to appease the cupidity of 
 the many. Christianity is for the individual; 
 Socialism is for the mob. Christianity may 
 touch the heart of the man and cause his whole 
 life to be nobler and better, because he as an 
 individual has of his own free will accepted 
 Christianity. He believes in it, and tries to follow 
 out its teaching, is ready to undergo pain and 
 hardship if necessary for the faith which is in him. 
 God speaks to man as an individual. Man cannot 
 be made moral, industrious, sober, and unselfish 
 by Act of Parliament or because the majority in a 
 Socialist State has decreeed that he must be so. 
 But he may be all these if he have faith and 
 courage. God judges the value of our actions by 
 our motives. A man may live decently and 
 honestly although he would like to be filthy and
 
 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 63 
 
 dishonest, but dare not. This man's righteous- 
 ness will be as filthy rags in the sight of the 
 Almighty. Under Socialism, if a man conforms 
 to the rules which the State has devised to regulate 
 and control his actions, he has done all that is 
 necessary. Under Socialism, there will be very 
 little scope for free will and the exercise of individual 
 initiative. The State will regulate all and control 
 all. But you cannot have true Christianity with- 
 out the greatest freedom of choice on the part of 
 the individual. No man can be truly moral unless 
 he has the chance to be immoral. No man can be 
 unselfish, unless he has the opportunity to be 
 wholly selfish. No man can be good unless he 
 deliberately and of his own free will rejects evil. 
 No man can be truly Christ-like if he has had 
 no chance to be thoroughly devilish. Under 
 Socialism, our actions will be regulated, directed, 
 controlled, and automatic. There will be very 
 little scope for the free exercise of natural impulse. 
 There will be no opportunity for doing much good, 
 and no chance to do very great evil. Under these 
 circumstances, there will be very little hope for 
 the development and growth of Christian principles 
 in the individual. For charity, help, sympathy, 
 and encouragement we now look to those who love 
 us and the exercise of these virtues is mutually 
 beneficial. The quality of mercy is twice blessed; 
 it blesseth him that giveth and him that reccivcth. 
 Under Socialism, instead of the voluntary self-
 
 64 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 sacrifice by which men help each other and by 
 which the bonds of friendship are cemented, we 
 shall in all difficulties be directed to apply to some 
 State official. Under individualism, the wife looks 
 up to, and depends upon, her husband, and the 
 child depends upon the self-sacrifice of its parents. 
 Thus marital and filial love is born and fostered, 
 and it is strengthened by the trials and difficulties 
 with which the family have to contend. Under 
 Socialism, each member of the family would owe 
 everything to the State, and nothing to members 
 of the family group. Is it likely that under such 
 circumstances family affection and brotherly love 
 will continue ? The State will be all in all. 
 Father, Mother, Husband, Wife, Brother, and 
 Sister. These tender relationships as we know 
 them now will no longer exist. The members 
 of the family will be simply co-pensioners upon 
 the resources of the State. 
 
 How, then, can there be Christian Socialism ? 
 A State in which there is very little scope for 
 friendship, affection, and love, and where each 
 individual will be chiefly concerned in seeing that 
 he gets his due share of the total wealth of the 
 community, surely is a most unpromising soil for 
 the growth of Christianity and the spreading of 
 Christian principles.
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 SOCIALISM AND SLAVERY, 
 
 The establishment of Socialism means farewell to 
 freedom. State control and State interference 
 must always result to a greater or lesser extent in 
 the loss of personal liberty. I do not deny that 
 under the existing system a man is not altogether 
 a free agent, but at the same time, he is not under 
 despotic control. 
 
 A workman has the right to sell his labour to 
 the best advantage, and to transfer himself from 
 one employer to another, and from one kind of 
 employment to another whenever he feels inclined. 
 His employer does not say to him, " Do this work, 
 or I will compel you to do it," but " Do this work 
 or leave my employ, and I will get somebody else 
 who will do it." If the employer adopted the 
 first plan, the workman would be in the position 
 of a slave, but as it is, although he may be impelled 
 l)y the force of circumstances to work when he 
 has no wish to do so, he retains his personal 
 liberty. 
 
 He can stop working if he likes. No one will 
 65
 
 66 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 interfere to prevent him, but he must take the 
 consequences. 
 
 Socialism, however, would change all this. 
 Each man would daily have to perform the task 
 allotted to him. No preference would be allowed 
 to be exercised. All labour would be done by 
 industrial and agricultural armies under State 
 control. And the existence of these armies would 
 necessitate officials to direct and supervise them. 
 In such a vast organization the discipline would 
 have to be rigidly severe. The rank and file would 
 have to obey the orders of the corporals and 
 sergeants, who would in turn be responsible to the 
 captains of industry. The captains also would 
 be subordinate to the majors, colonels, generals, 
 and the commander-in-chief of the labour army. 
 Throughout all this vast industrial organization 
 implicit obedience would be sternly demanded 
 and rigidly enforced. " Perform your appointed 
 task and take your prescribed rations." This 
 would be the unalterable law. What a bureau- 
 cratic despotism the Socialist State will be. 
 Officialism will rule with a rod of iron, but what 
 will be the position of the actual workers ? 
 
 Already, on the Continent, where the State has 
 usurped much greater power than in England, 
 and where the Governmental organizations are 
 more coercive than ours, we have chronic com- 
 plaints of official tyranny and brutality. If the 
 yoke of officialism is irksome now, when only the
 
 SOCIALISM AND SLAVERY. 67 
 
 more public actions of citizens are interfered with, 
 how unbearably galling will it prove to a liberty- 
 loving people when all their daily duties are 
 supervised and directed and controlled ? 
 
 We should also bear in mind the almost invari- 
 able tendency of State officials to support one 
 another. 
 
 The complaints and grievances of the workers 
 will stand but little chance of obtaining redress. 
 The vast army of officials will be united by 
 common interests — the interest of the regulators 
 against those of the regulated. Whenever those 
 interests are conflicting, the officials will have it 
 in their power to quickly suppress any insubordina- 
 tion, or any outward manifestations of discontent. 
 
 The workers in a Socialist community will be in 
 a far worse position as regards individual liberty 
 than the subjects of the most despotic sovereign 
 that ever existed. " Not so," replies the Socialist; 
 " the sovereign is an irresponsible tyrant, but the 
 State officials will be elected from the ranks of the 
 people, and, being representatives of the people, 
 the masses will really be governing themselves." 
 As a matter of theory this may be so, and yet the 
 tyranny be none the less severe. The real point 
 of issue is not as to the agency of the despotism 
 but as to whether despotism exists or not. We 
 must ask whether or not the lives of the citizens 
 will be greatly interfered with, and not so much as 
 to the agency which interferes with them. If the
 
 68 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 people elect a despot to rule over them, do they 
 remain free because the despotism was of their 
 own making ? 
 
 Similarly, if they elect a vast army of official 
 despots, their slavery will be just as real and their 
 bondage will be quite as irksome although they 
 themselves, voluntarily, entered into a state of 
 bondage. Living under a grinding tyranny, it 
 will be small consolation to reflect that the 
 tyranny was of their own creation. 
 
 Slavery is an integral part of the system of 
 Socialism, and it matters not to the Slave whether 
 his master is a private individual or a state official. 
 A free labourer can work or abstain from work as 
 he chooses. He receives a wage, and after his 
 day's labour is ended his employer has no control 
 over him. A slave, however, must work when his 
 master chooses; he receives no monetary renumer- 
 ation, but is fed and clothed by his master in 
 return for his labour. This is exactly the position 
 of the worker tinder Socialism. Let him not 
 think that he will be able to choose his task or to 
 lightly change from one task to another should 
 the first prove distateful. 
 
 In the Fabian Essays we read : — 
 
 "Another difficulty which will meet us, though not 
 immediately, is the competition for employment in 
 certain pleasanter branches of industry. At present 
 an unemployed person would catch eagerly at the 
 chance of any well-paid work he was able to perform.
 
 SOCIALISM AND SLAVERY. 69 
 
 If he were able both to set type and to stitch coats, 
 he would not dream of g-rumbling if he were by 
 chance offered the job he liked less of the two : he 
 would be only too glad to get either. But it is quite 
 possible that as the vast amelioration of life con- 
 ditions proceeds, Jeshurun will wax fat and kick if, 
 when he prefers to make microscopic lenses, he is 
 desired to make mirrors. Under these circumstances 
 Jeshurun will, I fear, have to accommodate himself 
 to the demand. If the number of people engaged in 
 making lenses suffices to meet the demand for lenses, 
 Jeshurun must consent to turn his talents for the 
 time to mirror making." 
 
 In other words, he must do as he is told. If he 
 wishes to make mirrors he may be sent to clean 
 out the gutters, or if he prefers to be an architect 
 he may have to be a pork butcher. 
 
 The majority in a Socialist State will take the 
 place of Almighty God, and the officials will 
 enforce upon the minority the behests of King 
 Demos. 
 
 I can conceive of no worse slavery than this. 
 The heart of a tyrant may be softened, and the 
 worst despot has his conciliatory moments, but 
 the rule of the majority — perhaps a small 
 majority — will be rigid and unalterable. 
 
 Why should Ihc majority take the place of God? 
 History shows us that the majority is not always 
 right. From Jesus Christ and his disciples, all 
 through the ages the very highest moral actions
 
 70 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 have been performed in spite of the strongest 
 opposition on the part of the majority of the 
 community. Why then should we regulate our 
 life and conduct by the decision of the majority? 
 It is vulgar, unnatural, and slavish, and the free 
 man vi'ill have none of it. He could not breathe 
 in such an atmosphere after inhaling the refreshing 
 air of liberty. 
 
 But under Socialism, liberty must die. The 
 members of a Socialist community must not only 
 submit to have their actions controlled, but their 
 speech also would be subject to restrictions. Free 
 expression of individual opinion, either on the 
 platform or through the medium of the press, 
 would not from the very nature of Socialism be 
 tolerated. All means by which it was possible to 
 attract the attention and gain the ear of the public 
 would be under the control of the State. It is not 
 reasonable to suppose that a Socialist Government 
 would provide halls in which its adversaries might 
 hold meetings and agitate for its overthrow. 
 Neither would it print books and pamphlets to 
 show that its methods were mischievous and 
 cumbersome. Neither would it give the charge 
 of newspapers and public journals to men who 
 might use these powerful organs to stir up public 
 feeling in favour of a return to Individualism. In 
 short, not only would a man have to act as the 
 State told him to act, but he would also have to 
 think as the State wanted him to think, or else
 
 SOCIALISM AND SLAVERY. 7 1 
 
 deny himself the free man's privilege of expressing 
 his thoughts. 
 
 In such a community, in which liberty of 
 thought and action is strictly suppressed, in which 
 originality is discouraged, and individual enterprise 
 becomes a crime, a dreary dead level would be 
 the ideal condition of society. The officials would 
 speedily become tyrannous despots, and the 
 workers would degenerate into dull, unthinking 
 automata, without energy for labour or capacity 
 for enjoyment. 
 
 Is this a system under which we as Englishmen 
 could contentedly live? No one with any know- 
 ledge of the National Character can answer, Yes! 
 
 Our forefathers struggled against the usurping 
 tyranny of the crown and the arrogant despotism 
 of the Romish Church, and as long as the British 
 people retain that resolute perseverance and dogged 
 determination which characterized their ancestors, 
 they will submit neither to the capricious sway of 
 a crowned despot nor to the grinding tyranny of a 
 Socialist regime.
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 SOCIALISM AND PATRIOTISM. 
 
 Just as the opium-eater or the devotee of laudanum 
 becomes mentally incapable of taking a rational 
 view of any question, so the man who has absorbed 
 Socialistic opinions becomes incapable of con- 
 sidering Imperial matters from a sane and healthy 
 standpoint. Socialists wish to impose upon Society 
 an unnatural system of government, and it is not 
 to be wondered at that the more deeply tinged by 
 Socialism a man becomes the more strained and 
 unnatural is his attitude towards great public 
 questions. 
 
 A man who lived in a hothouse would shiyer 
 when exposed to healthy moorland breezes, and a 
 man who breathes the artificial atmosphere of 
 Socialism feels not only unappreciative, but 
 absolutely distressed when he witnesses any great 
 outburst of national enthusiasm. Socialists are 
 the friends of every country but their own. They 
 endeavour to be cosmopolitan and broad-minded, 
 but only succeed in being parochial and weak- 
 kneed. When the British army, assisted by the 
 
 72
 
 SOCIALISM AND PATRIOTISM. 73 
 
 Colonial troops, was fighting for the very life- 
 blood of the British Empire, during the Boer 
 war, prominent Socialists, M.P.'s, and others were 
 vilifying our brave soldiers, and openly sym- 
 pathizing with the enemy. The Socialist was 
 naturally a pro-Boer, just as he would be a pro- 
 German or pro-Russian if we were at war with 
 either of those nations. I do not blame him for 
 it. He cannot help himself His opinions arc 
 the inevitable outcome of the diseased condition 
 of his mind. The natural man thinks first of his 
 own wife, his own family, his own home, his own 
 country, and if necessary will fight to defend 
 them. 
 
 Throughout the whole of animated nature the 
 same principle applies. Even beasts and birds 
 will defend their own mates, offspring, and dwell- 
 ing-places. The Socialist is the only exception, 
 and this is because he has no proper place in 
 nature. " Why should a man prefer his own 
 country?" asks the Socialist. "We are citizens 
 of the world. Why should a man prefer his own 
 wife, children, or household ? Let the State 
 support his wife, train his children, and house 
 them in barracks instead of allowing them the 
 selfish seclusion of a home. Are we not all 
 members of the community, and is not one man 
 as good as another, and no man's wife and family 
 better than those of any one else ? " 
 
 To any one holding these opinions, true patri-
 
 74 THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM. 
 
 otism is impossible. If the Socialist party obtained 
 a majority in Parliament we could not trust them 
 to maintain the honour and integrity of the 
 Empire. They would be too busily engaged in 
 robbing the thrifty and industrious in order to 
 satisfy the cupidity of the mob. Our glorious 
 Empire would appear to them but a barren thing 
 and a useless heritage. 
 
 Let the man in the street answer a straight 
 question. Is he prepared to sacrifice the Empire, 
 to part with our Colonies, and to see England 
 become a fifth-rate Power without voice or in- 
 fluence in the councils of the nations ? If not, 
 then he must be prepared to fight for the honour 
 of his country and the safety of the Empire, not 
 only against foreign aggressors, but against more 
 insidious foes within our gates. He must not dally 
 with Socialism, for he cannot serve two masters. 
 He can either be a Socialist or a patriot, but he 
 cannot be both. It will be a bad day for England 
 if he choose the former. Socialism brings with 
 it a lack of manly self-reliance and a weak 
 dependence upon the State. Like indulgence in 
 a noxious drug, it saps the manhood and virility 
 of the nation. Let us have none of it. We desire 
 neither slavery nor licence, for England's Mission 
 of Empire is not yet accomplished, and it must 
 be carried out by a strong, vigorous, and manly 
 race: — a race possessing faith in God, faith in 
 themselves and their own exertions, and faith in
 
 SOCIALISM AND PATRIOTISM. 75 
 
 the Imperial destiny of a brave, generous, hard- 
 working, virile, and healthy people. 
 
 "Go to your work and be strong, halting not in your ways, 
 Baulking the end, half won, for an instant dole of praise 
 Stand to your work and be wise — certain of sword and pen, 
 Who are neither children nor Gods, but men, in a world of 
 men."— Kipling.
 
 THE WALTER SCOTT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD., FEI.LING-ON-TYNn.
 
 9
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 JAN 2 y 1950 
 
 FEB 1619^0 
 
 N0V2 9l9Sr" 
 JUN 1 3 If 53 
 
 ftPH ;. .-; fM 
 
 OWON M|IR07'dl 
 
 t'orm L9-25»i-9,'47(A5618)444 
 
 
 ;AiN LOAN DEo^ 
 I^L NOV 15 1964 
 
 NOV 15 19B4 
 
 (^£TD 300K BOX 
 
 /.Wi 
 
 A-9 
 
 y 1 iL. 
 
 I!ICT261l72 
 
 APR''^ 
 
 .\o 
 
 i^ LO-URB 
 
 MAY 18 1975 
 '^^^^-^■^4 1988 
 
 »«*«• 
 
 1 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORN^f 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 UCSOi 
 
 hiriLiTY 
 
 AA 001213 390 6