1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0fc5552cd5e8fc29da1724397db0f46f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=fKnA3uCq2GHNduWbIKa7lnJPlgia%7E6irKURiGtGSgcL3PY4XW%7E0LgOwTO2%7EdcgDV6yDipvQ12YCWeKFtrbde6koxNwLfj8hSlAqAvwx3miHOP-mj6uaE2ADb6yVFY%7EYGEsDsqkwNyyOA0XhCdRrDlWOK55O1v4rzRqxVg5PlPeP%7E2fw4OsD33O4w9RdypHEerVp8BuQe6XTFftnChBJAwG-W5it%7Ed8sEVc-W%7E7m6THciu03mQG1w1PXm0GSOKll2ZYdq7h9KEUcGWFhsNjt37B1yVpWl1Aus3Zzg8fOB-CisyXIQ7L0gS-IPiTv8XnWLP9SdTzdIN1XUZPfJXGNA4A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
cdad33cf09b36e20f409a2fdda209682
PDF Text
Text
CT&>
PRICE ONE PENNY.
HERBERT SPENCER
I
ON SOCIALISM.
A
TO
THE
REPLY
THE
ARTICLE
ENTITLED
COMING
SLAVERY,
(In the “ Contemporary Review” for April, 1884.)
BY
v FRANK FAIRMAN/
l,e*( TheoAef-e
THE
13
and
R- UJKrlct"
MODERN
14, PATERNOSTER
PRESS,
ROW,
LONDON,
E.C.
AND OF
W. REEVES, 185, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E C.
1884.
�“ Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.”
�HERBERT SPENCER ON SOCIALISM.
“ Is Saul also amongst the prophets ? ” seems to have been
at one time the proverbial formula for expressing surprise,
bordering on incredulity, at the appearance of any wellknown
individual in a new and unexpected character, and the like
feelings may probably be evoked by the inquiry—“ Is Herbert
Spencer also amongst the humourists ? ” A careful and
repeated perusal, however, of his latest deliverance on social
questions in the April number of the Contemporary Review, and
a comparison of it with other writings of his which are un
doubtedly serious, almost forces one to the conclusion that
he is on this occasion laughing in his sleeve at the British
public, and enjoying the joke of being held up as Defender of
the universal-scramble and Devil-take-the-hindmost Faith
which not once only, but all his life, he has laboured to
destroy. Probably no one—not even Dr. Marx, himself (his
works being inaccessible in English) has done so much to
promote the spread of socialistic ideas in England as Mr.
Spencer, and to those who have for years felt that in the
principles he has laid down they had a sure and solid founda
tion on which to stand, and a clue to guide them in coming
to a right conclusion on many vexed questions of political
and social importance, it will be an immense relief to find
that their great teacher has not really turned his back upon
himself, but that like Rabelais and others, he is only con
cealing his real purpose under a cloak—not of nastiness—
which neither his own taste, nor the manners of the age would
permit — but of apparent hard-heartedness and economic
superficiality, both of which are alike repugnant to his real
nature. What better evidence can we have that a writer
is masquerading than to find—
being a philanthropist, whose sympathies arq pot
�4
limited by country, colour, or creed, he insults the unfor
tunate and apparently depreciates all attempts to help
them.
2. —That being an exact and profound thinker, he over
states and mis-states his (nominal) opponent’s case in order
to prejudice it, and trots out from the economic stable vener
able old screws like “ wages-fund,” which though they made
good running in their day, are now only fit for a fair-trade
procession.
3. —That being probably the leading philosopher of the
age, he condemns, because it bears an unpopular name, the
very thing which he has himself held up as the grand
desideratum.
4. —That being a master of the English language, he uses
terms so exactly and admirably adapted to describe the
effects of the present system of production that when applied
to its rival they can only be taken ironically, and—
Lastly, when there is an intelligible object for the grim joke,
viz., that of sending those who are so delighted with this last
essay, to study the other writings of their supposed champion,
where, if they are at all amenable to reason, his inexorable
logic can hardly fail to convince them of the necessity of at
least as radical a reconstruction of society as even the
Democratic Federation can desire. Furthermore, the dis
covery that there is this vein of humour in Mr. Spencer’s
composition will assist one to read between the lines of those
portions of Social Statics in which he has denounced
Socialism—in name—and even combatted, though, but im
perfectly, some of its claims, though at the same time
admitting that they spring naturally from the principles he
has formulated.
Let us take these various propositions in order and see
whether or not they are justified.
1.—It is hardly necessary to prove that Mr. Spencer is a
genuine philanthropist, but the following sentences show
what was once the real attitude of his mind towards the
poorer classes, and the hard conditions of their lot:—
“ It is a pity that those who speak disparagingly of the masses have not
wisdom enough, to make due allowance for the unfavourable circumstances
in which the masses are placed. Suppose that after weighing the evidence
it should turn out that the working men do exhibit greater vices than those
more comfortably off; does it therefore follow that they are morally
worse ? . . . Shall as much be expected at their hands as from those born
�5
into a more fortunate position ? . . . Surely the lot of the hard-handed
labourer is pitiable enough without having harsh judgments passed upon
him. To be wholly sacrificed to other men’s happiness; to be made a
mere human tool; to have every faculty subordinated to the sole function of
work—this, one would say, is alone a misfortune, needing all sympathy for
its mitigation. . . It is very easy for you, oh respectable citizen, seated in
your easy chair, with your feet on the fender, to hold forth on the mis
conduct of the people, very easy for you to censure their extravagant
and vicious habits, very easy for you to be a pattern of frugality, of
rectitude, of sobriety. What else should you be ? Here are you surrounded
by comforts, possessing multiplied sources of lawful happiness, with a
reputation to maintain, an ambition to fulfil, and prospects of a competency
for old age. . . If you do not contract dissipated habits where is the
merit ?
How would these virtues of yours stand the wear and tear of
poverty ? Where would your prudence and self-denial be if you were
deprived of all the hopes that now stimulate you; if you had no better
prospect than that of the Dorsetshire farm-servant with his 7s.
a-week, or that of the perpetually straitened stocking weaver, or
that of the mill-hand with his periodical suspensions of work ? Let
us see you tied to an irksome employment from dawn till dusk;
fed on meagre food, and scarcely enough of that; married to a factory
girl ignorant of domestic management; deprived of the enjoyments
which education opens up; with no place of recreation but the pot
house, and then let us see whether you would be as steady as you are.
Suppose your savings had to be made, not, as now, out of surplus ’income,
but out of wages already insufficient for necessaries; and then consider
whether to be provident would be as easy as you at present find it. . .
“ How offensive it is to hear some pert, self-approving personage, who
thanks God that he is not as other men are, passing harsh sentence on his
poor, hardworked, heavily burdened fellow-countrymen; including them
all in one sweeping condemnation, because in their struggles for existence
they do not maintain the same prim respectability as himself. Of all
stupidities there are few greater, and yet few in which we more doggedly
persist, than this of estimating other men’s conduct by the standard of our
own feelings. . . We cannot understand another’s character except by
abandoning our own identity, and realising to ourselves his frame of mind,
his want of knowledge, his hardships, temptations and discouragements.
And if the wealthier classes would do this before framing their opinions
of the working man, their verdict would savour somewhat more of that
charity which covereth a multitude of sins." — Social Statics, part 3,
chapter 20.
What a striking contrast do those sentiments present to
the opening of the article on the Coming Slavery, where the
author speaks of “the miseries of the poor being thought of
as the miseries of the deserving poor, instead of being thought
of as in large measure they should be, as the miseries of the
undeserving poor”; goes on to describe the idlers about
tavern doors, the men who appropriate the wages of their
wives, the fellows who share the gains of prostitutes, &c.,
�6
and then says—“ Is it not manifest that there must exist in
our midst an enormous amount of misery which is a normal
result of misconduct, and ought not to be dissociated from
it ? ” Can any one doubt that Mr. Spencer is as perfectly
well aware as any one who reads these lines, that it is the
misery of the deserving poor, not that of the undeserving,
which has excited so much sympathy :—and that if by toiling
twelve or fourteen hours a day men and women could have
secured as good accommodation as well kept pigs, and as
good and sufficient food as cart-horses, we should have heard
no “ bitter cry,” and had no Royal Commission ? The
loungers who rush to open a cab-door are not to be lost sight
of, but it is a mere gratuitous assumption that all or most
of them could find better work to do. An equally patent
fact is the immense rush for any opportunity of earning an
honest living at even the lowest remuneration, as witness the
crowds who besiege the London Docks at 6 o’clock every
morning, 40 per cent, at least being stated by eye-witnesses
to go away disappointed. Mr, Spencer has taken great
pains to collect information regarding the aborigines of all
parts of the globe, and can hardly have passed over his own
countrymen ; if he has ever made a personal tour of our
great metropolitan markets and leading thoroughfares, early
in the morning or late at night, he must be convinced from
witnessing the innumerable shifts and devices resorted to,
the hard work undergone, and the discomfort endured, to
gain a few miserable pence and so escape the workhouse,
that taking the poorer classes as a whole, laziness is the last
vice which can be laid to their charge. Thriftless they un
doubtedly are, but what inducement have they to be other
wise, when the most strenuous efforts would be so hopelessly
futile of obtaining anything like a tangible result. In
temperate, on occasion they are also, but there is much
excuse, if no justification, for their indulging when they have
the means in the only form of pleasurable excitement known
or open to them. Unoerlying these opening sentences, is
the common assumption that an honest, sober, and in
dustrious workman can always find employment. It must
be acknowledged that there is some slight colour for the
assumption,but what doesit come to when analysed ? Simply
that the best men get employed first. But if all were equally
sober, industrious, and skilful, their good qualities would
�7
bear no premium in the labour market, and what little
foundation there is now for this assumption would vanish ; so
that, in fact, it rather is to the bad qualities of their fellows
than to their own virtues—to the existence in short, of the
tavern and street corner loungers—that the elite of the
working classes owe such advantages as they possess. Once
more, can any one suppose that Mr. Spencer, of all men,
needs to have this pointed out ? It is impossible.
2.—“ There is a notion,” says Mr. Spencer, “ always more
or less prevalent, and just now vociferously expressed, that
all social suffering is removable, and that it is the duty of
somebody or other to remove it. Both these beliefs are
false.” A great portion of social suffering arises from the
death of relatives and friends, but no instructed Socialist has
as yet proposed to remove it; on the contrary, unhappily,
some ^instructed ones seem rather in favour of increasing
it. Speaking seriously, however, what Socialists maintain
is—not any such absurdity as the above, but that a great
deal of suffering is removable, and in particular that an im
mense deal of it results directly from defective social arrange
ments ; and that this portion at least, can be, and ought to be,
removed. They are firmly convinced that material im
provement without moral and intellectual elevation is a
chimera, but they are equally convinced that the moral eleva
tion of the lowest class without material improvement is im
possible. They agree with Mr. Spencer in accepting the
scientific accuracy of the maxim, “ If any will not work
neither shall he eat; ” but they also believe that “ if any do
not eat neither can he work; ” and they object to the pre
sent system of distribution because on the one hand it gives
plenty to eat to those who do not work at all,. and on the
other, leaves those who work the hardest the smallest possible
means and opportunity of eating anything.
The next suggestion is that the working classes are being
supplied with dwelling accommodation at less than its com
mercial value, because in Liverpool the municipality has
spent ^200,000 in pulling down and reconstructing, and “ the
implication is that in some way the ratepayers supply the
poor with more accommodation than the rents they pay
would otherwise have brought.” An equally logical implica
tion would be, that in some way some of the non-working
classes have obtained £200,000 of the ratepayer’s money be-
�8x
yond the commercial value of their property. Mr. Spencer
also . says that the advantages derived from free libraries,
public baths, Board schools, etc., are only a rate in aid of
wages, and that these seeming boons are really illusory. It
might be said that these things being necessaries, if they
were not supplied by the public, the working classes would
insist on such wages as would enable them to provide them
for themselves ; and such an argument would be not only
plausible, but sound, assuming the premises to be correct,
which evidently they are not. But the line of reasoning
adopted seems to be that capitalists give as high wages as ever
they can afford, many of them even coming to grief from their
liberality in this respect, and that any inroads by taxation on
either profits or “wages fund” necessitate, much against
their will, an equivalent reduction in wages. Whether either
the premises or the argument in this case be sounder than m
the previous one, those who understand anything of
economics must judge. It may be pointed out, however, that
this view accords very ill with the conclusions of Mr. Giffen,
and similar optimists, who prove very much to their own
satisfaction that the wages of the working classes have con
siderably improved during the very period that the public
have been providing these illusory benefits. Besides, supposing
Mr. Spencer’s criticism on this point well founded, it is obviously
only an argument against half and half measures, and in
favour of real Socialism, (did he mean it as such ?) which
would abolish this cut-throat competition between employers,
by which both their own profits and the remuneration of
labour are reduced to a minimum.
3-—The condemnation of Socialism by name is too obvious
to need more than a general reference. To show that the
thing itself is _ the only legitimate outcome of Mr. Spencer’s
teaching, it is necessary to refer in some detail to Social
Statics, especially as this book is not now readily accessible.
It is understood that Mr. Spencer objects to its being re
printed until he has time to revise and modify some portions,
but judging by the preface to the last edition, such modifica
tions will be confined to the practical applications of the prin
ciples laid down, and will not interfere with the principles
themselves. So firmly, indeed, has the author established
these, that it would be difficult even for him to upset them.
It is to these that attention will be chiefly directed, rather
�9
than to special deductions which the writer draws from them ;
and, be it said with all deference, it is not for a philosopher
who succeeds in establishing a principle to dictate what con
clusions may or may not be drawn from it; that must
depend on the acknowledged rules of logic.
Without unduly lengthening these pages by citations, it may
fairly be said that the one great principle which Mr. Spencer
establishes as the fundamental law of morality for human
beings, is what he terms “the law of equal freedom ; ” that
is, that every individual should enjoy perfect liberty to exer
cise all his faculties, the only limitation being that he shall
not in so doing infringe in any manner on the like freedom
of others. As he puts it, “ man must have liberty to go and
to come ; to see, to feel, to speak, to work, to get food,
raiment, and shelter, and to provide for each and all the
needs of his nature.” (p. 93.) Again, “If this law of equal
freedom is the primary law of right relationship between man
and man, then no desire to get fulfilled a secondary law can
warrant us in breaking it.” It is here contended that the
acceptance of this primary law inevitably leads to Socialism,
and can lead to nothing else. Mr. Spencer has himself done
the greater part of the work required to show that it does so,
by himself drawing from it the deduction that it includes the
right to the use of the earth. “ Each is free to use the earth
for the satisfaction of his wants provided he allows all others
the same liberty. And conversely it is manifest that no one
may use the earth in such a way as to prevent the rest from
similarly using it. Equity, therefore does not permit pro
perty in land.” (p. 131). Again, “ It is impossible to dis
cover any mode in which land can become private property.”
And at p. 143 “ Bye and bye men may learn that to deprive
others of their rights to the use of the earth is to commit a
crime inferior only in wickedness to the crime of taking away
their lives or personal liberties.”
So far so good; but the author goes a step, and a very im
portant step further, and when dealing with the rights of pro
perty points out that all wealth being derived from the earth,
the only legitimate basis qf property is the exercise of man’s
labour upon land for which he has paid to society, the rightful
owner thereof, a fair rent, and this never having been done,
all personal as well as real property, is tainted and illegitimate
in its origin. This important deduction of his own drawing
�Mr. Spencer seems afterwards to have somewhat lost sight
of. Well may he say, with reference to another matter, but
it is equally applicable to this : “ Due warning was given that
our first principle carried in it the germs of sundry unlooked
for conclusions. We have just found ourselves committed to
a proposition at war with the convictions of almost all. Truth,
however, must of necessity be consistent; we have, there
fore, no alternative but to re-examine our pre-conceived
notions in the expectation of finding them erroneous.”
(p. 195.) This is exactly what Socialists desire mankind to do
with regard to their pre-conceived notions about the produc
tion and distribution of wealth, bearing in mind that “ as
liberty to exercise the faculties is the first condition of in
dividual life, the liberty of each limited only bv the like
liberty of all, must be the first condition of social life, the law
of equal freedom is of higher authority than all other laws.”
(p. 217.) Remembering also that “ before establishing a code
for the right exercise of faculties there must be established
the condition which makes the exercise of faculties possible.
It is the function of this chief institution which we call a
government, to uphold the law of equal freedom.” (p. 278.)
Is not this precisely the contention of Socialists, that the first
duty of the State is to see that each individual has a chance
of exercising his faculties, the digestive ones included ?
It is quite true that Mr. Spencer apparently shrinks from
this “unlooked for conclusion,” and declines to recognise
either a right to maintenance, or the right to labour; but, as
observed at the outset, a suspicion not unnaturally arises that
in so doing he was possibly actuated rather by policy than
conviction, especially when we examine the mode in which
he deals with these two claims. He disposes of the first by
asserting that it cannot be entertained until an exact defini
tion is arrived at of what a maintenance means, whether
a bare subsistence, or a certain amount, and if so how much,
of comforts or luxuries. It may be replied in the first place
that though this task may be difficult, it does not follow that
it is impossible ; and if confined, as is evidently contemplated,
to those who cannot get their own living, those entrusted by
society with the charge ofmaintaing them would easily estab
lish a working scale, as is in fact done. Besides, as Mr.
Spencer repeatedly points out in other cases, it by no means
follows that the law of perfect morality is discredited because
�ri
it is difficult or even impossible of application in an imper
fect state of society. Once more, Socialists do not contend
that every one is entitled to a maintenance without earning
it; quite the reverse. The real gist of the argument there
fore, turns on the next point, the right to labour, which is
dealt with still less satisfactorily. Mr. Spencer says, “ First,
let us make sure of the meaning wrapped up in this expres
sion—right to labour. Evidently, if we would avoid mistakes
we must render it literally—right to the labour; ” (which
does not seem to make it any plainer) “ for the thing deman
ded is not the liberty of labouring ; this no one disputes ; ”
(on the contrary it is the very thing which is disputed, unless
swinging one’s arms and legs aimlessly is to be called labour
ing) “ but it is the opportunity of labouring, the having re
munerative employment provided, which is contended for.”
Now, to take Mr. Spencer literally, one wants to know
whether it is the liberty combined with the opportunity
which he concedes (if he does he concedes the whole point),
or the liberty without the opportunity, which he seems to
mean ; if so, he may as well concede the liberty to fly. It
is something like the liberty which calvinistic theologians
accord to those predestined to damnation; just enough
to save the credit of the deity, but not enough, without
the effectual grace which they never get, to save their own
souls. Again, “the word right, as here used, bears a
signification quite different from its legitimate one, for it does
not here imply something inherent in man, but something
dependent upon external circumstances, not something pos
sessed in virtue of his faculties, but something springing out
of his relationship to others, not something true of him as a
solitary individual, but something which can be true of him
only as one of a community, not something antecedent to
society, but something necessarily subsequent to it, not some
thing expressive of a claim to do, but of a claim to be done
unto.” With the exception of the last member of the sen
tence, which might be disputed, this is an accurate criticism,
but does it not strengthen the claim rather than weaken it ?
The right, in its strict sense, on which the claim is founded, is
the right to use the faculties, and the fact that everything on
which that right can be exercised, every inch of ground, and
every particle of wood, stone, iron, etc., has been previously
appropriated by society seems a very insufficient reason for
�1-3
rejecting the claim. To so reject it, is in fact to contravene
one of the fundamental rules of equity, that no one may take
advantage of his own wrong doing.
Going on further, Mr. Spencer by that clear method of
analysis of which he is a master, points out that when the
proposition is reduced to its lowest terms, it only means that
society is the employer, and therefore in efiect the labourer
says that ABC and D are bound to employ him ; that he,
with B C and D are bound to employ A; and so on with
each individual of the twenty millions’of whom the society
may be composed ; and then, with a fine touch of humour, he
adds: “ Thus do we see how readily imaginary rights are
distinguishable from real ones. They need no disproof, they
disprove themselves. The ordeal of definition breaks the
illusion at once.” It certainly does not break this illusion, if
it be one ; on the contrary, this admirable mode of stating
the case only confirms the justice of the claim, when the real
facts are considered. It is in truth the veritable A B C of
Socialism. All the letters of the social alphabet, large and
small, furnish employment; even the veriest waif and outcast
provides employment for others, be it only the policeman and
gaoler ; and this claim of the right to labour is nothing more
nor less than a protest on the part of the small letters, who
each help to swell the demand, against the supply being mon
opolized by the capitals for their own profit. As Mr. Spencer
himself puts it at p. 345: “We must not overlook the fact
that erroneous as are these poor law and communist theories,
these assertions of a man’s right to maintenance and of his
right to have work provided for him, they are nevertheless
nearly related to a truth. They are unsuccessful efforts to
express the fact that whoso is born on this planet of ours
thereby obtains some interest in it—may not be summarily
dismissed again—may not have his existence ignored by those
in possession. In other words, they are attempts to embody
that thought which finds its legitimate utterance in the law,
all men have equal rights to the use of the earth. . . . After
getting from under the grosser injustice of slavery men could
not help beginning in course of time to feel what a monstrous
thing it was that nine people out of ten should live in the
world on suffrance, not having even standing room save by
allowance of those who claim the earth’s surface. Could it
be right that all these human beings should not only be with-
�'r3
out claim to the necessaries of life, should not only be denied
the use of those elements from which such necessaries are
obtainable—but should further be unable to exchange their
labour for such necessaries except by leave of their more for
tunate fellows ? . . . . To all which questions now forced
upon men’s minds in more or less definite shapes, there come
amongst other answers these theories of a right to a mainten
ance and a right of labour. Whilst, therefore, they must be
rejected as untenable we may still ” [not give any definite
answer which is more tenable, but] “ recognise in them the
imperfect utterances of the moral sense in its efforts to express
equity.”
4.—At p. 474 of the Contemporary Review Mr. Spencer says :
“Why is this change described as the Coming Slavery?
The reply is simple. All Socialism involves slavery,” and
then, in an eloquent passage he asks and answers the question,
“ what is essential to the idea of a slave ? ” The result being
thus expressed. “ The essential question is, how much is he
compelled to labour for other benefit than his own, and how
much he can labour for his own benefit ? The degree of his
slavery varies according to the ratio between that which he
is forced to yield up and that which he is allowed to retain ;
and it matters not whether his master is a single person or a
society. If, without option he has to labour for the society
and receives from the general stock such portion as the society
awards him, he becomes a slave to the society.” Could there
be a more exact description of the condition of the modern
wage labourer under the capitalist system ? Yet Mr. Spencer
adds, “ Socialistic arrangements necessitate an enslavement
of this kind.” If they did, they would be no worse than
present arrangements, but they do not. Socialistic arrange
ments literally, etymologically, and reasonably, only mean
such arrangements as will admit of the great primary law of
equal freedom being carried out. As the whole work of Mr.
Spencer’s life shows, Sociology as a science is still in its in
fancy ; it is no wonder therefore that though many good men
in former times have indistinctly seen the promised land afar
off, or in visions, no Moses has yet arisen with sufficient
knowledge, wisdom, and divine enthusiasm to lead the people
out of their worse than Egyptian bondage, and guide them
safely through the dreary wilderness of economic truisms and
fallacies which have to be traversed ere that holy land is
�T4
reached. Happily, a very good sketch map of the route has
recently been laid down by Mr. Carruthers, some of whose
observations on this particular point seem to have been
written specially in anticipation of “ The Coming Slavery.”
He says:—
“ Without formally asserting that men under Communal Government
could not be allowed every possible freedom, except that of compelling
others to serve them, they (capitalists) assert that such freedom would not
be granted if any but capitalists governed the world. Acting under these
opinions, or rather prejudices, they devise an ideal commune, in which
every public and private action would be guided by idiotic folly and per
versity, and then triumphantly ask whether even the working classes are
not better off under commercialism than they would be under so absurd a
system. If we are to believe what they tell us, communal government
would be entrusted to a huge bureaucracy, sitting at the capital town, like
a spider in the middle of its web, and sending its commands over the
country as to what every one should eat and drink, what clothes he should
wear, what religion he should profess, at what sports he should play, what
trade he should follow, when and whom he should marry, and finally, the
shape and material of his coffin........................ Imperfect as the workmen’s
freedom actually is, we are quite prepared to admit that mere material
well-being would not compensate them for its loss, and that they would do
better for themselves by upholding commercialism than by adopting such
a scheme of communism as is sketched out for them by the capitalists.
They are not, however, tied to this system, which is indeed such as no
sane man would ever dream of establishing, nor need they fear that under
the commune, anyone would lose any freedom he now enjoys....................
Instead of comparing commercialism with the form of communism that
would be set up by men as foolish and meddling as the capitalists assume
every one but themselves to be, we must compare it with a system in which
no one desires, or would be permitted to interfere unnecessarily with his
fellows, and in which the sphere of State control would be made as re
stricted as was compatible with securing the end for which all government
is established, namely, the well-being of the people.”—"Communal and
Commercial Economy ” p. 321 et seq.
Very much to the same practical effect are Mr. Spencer’s
own words : “ Civilization is evolving a state of things and a
kind of character in which two apparently conflicting require
ments are reconciled. To achieve the creative purpose—
the greatest sum of happiness—there must on the one hand
exist an amount of population maintainable only by the best
possible system of production ; that is, by the most elaborate
subdivision of labour ; that is, by the extremest mutual de
pendence, whilst on the other hand each individual must
have the right to do whatever his desires prompt. Clearly
these two conditions can be harmonized only by that adap
tation humanity is undergoing, that process during which all
�i5
desires inconsistent with the most perfect social organization
are dying out, and other desires corresponding to such or
ganizations are being developed.” (Social Statics, p. 482.)
A better definition of the real aims of Socialism than the
first portion of the above extract could hardly be given, and
the conclusion seems inevitable, either that Mr. Spencer is
having his little joke in denouncing the Coming Slavery; or,
which seems still more difficult of belief, he has fallen into
the vulgar error of condemning Socialism because he does
not agree with what all who call themselves Socialists may
say. He might as well deride all law, religion, medicine, and
charity, because unscrupulous advocates, corrupt judges,
self-seeking hypocrites, ignorant quacks, and misguided
enthusiasts have sheltered themselves under these sacred
names. In any case, genuine Socialists will be none the less
grateful to him for affording this opportunity of supporting
the cause which he and they alike have at heart, from the
rich storehouse which he has provided. If, as may perhaps
be inferred from the last sentence quoted, his objection is
merely to the method, and he only fears that the desired re
forms may be attempted too soon, or by wrong means, he
may be reassured by a consideration of the fact, which he
has over and over again insisted upon, that “ the sense of
rights, by whose sympathetic excitement men are led to behave
justly to each other, is the same sense of rights by which they
are prompted to assert their own claims.” And conversely
those who are most forward to assert their own claims are as
a rule the most ready to respect the rights of others. Mr.
Spencer has a well-founded dread of paternal legislation, and
unlimited faith in the power of voluntary co-operation, but
seems hardly to realize how far the government of the future
will necessarily partake of the character of co-operation, for
cible interference being limited almost entirely to his own
minimum, that necessary to secure equal justice. In conclusion
it may with all respect be submitted that his great
powers would be more usefully employed in assisting the
efforts of those who share his own aspirations, and found
themselves upon his own principles, than in even appearing
to lend the weight of his authority to the already overwhelm
ing mass of stolid Conservatism. Intelligent criticism is
always useful, and to none more so than to those who are en
deavouring to devise a better mode of life ; but Mr; Spencer
�i6
Claims to be a synthetical philosopher, and from him, there
fore, something beyond mere criticism is expected. It is no
use to tell us that “ the welfare of a society and the justice of
its arrangements are at bottom dependent on the character of
its members,” nor can Mr. Spencer claim any exclusive
ownership in this idea. What is wanted before all things at
the present day is some method of improving individual
character, and especially that side of it which modern com
mercialism does everything to foster, that grasping, selfish,
greed of gain, which is at once corrupting the upper and
degrading the lower sections of society.
In an early essay
Mr. Spencer depicted the vices of modern trade in a manner it
would be difficult to rival; it is these very vices, springing from
unchecked, almost inevitable selfishness, that Socialism seeks
to uproot, and nothing in his last paper goes one inch towards
showing that it would be ineffectual for the purpose, still less
does he offer any alternative. Such may yet be forthcoming,
and even if not complete, an instalment will be heartily wel
comed by those earnest men who are less affected by specu
lative and imaginary fears of the coming slavery, than by a
deep and ever growing sense of the enormity of that present
slavery which they see around them.
Literature
on
Land, Labour
and
Capital, &c.,
Published by W. Reeves, 185, Fleet Street, London.
THE CHRISTIAN SOCIALIST. Monthly, id.; is. 6d. a year
6
2
post free. The First Volume neatly bound in Cloth
ART AND SOCIALISM, by William Morris. Large paper, is.
Ordinary o 3
(postage id.),
Cloth I o
THE LAND QUESTION, by Henry George ..
(postage id.) o 3
,,
,,
Popular Edition,
PROGRESS AND POVERTY, by Henry George. 8-vo. Library
size, Paper, is.; Limp Cloth, is. 6d.; Cloth, 2S. 6d. (postage 3d.) I o
o
I
PORTRAIT OF HENRY GEORGE (Cabinet 2s. 6d.)
LAND NATIONALISATION ; Its Necessity and its Aims, by A.
Russell Wallace. Paper, 8d. (postage 3d.);
Cloth I 6
ENGLAND FOR ALL, The Text Book of Democracy, by H. M.
Hyndman
.................................................
(postage 2d.) o 6
THE LAND LAWS, as they are and as they should be, by Hine
i
0
Solon
..
..
..
..
••
••
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Herbert Spencer on socialism. A reply to the article entitled "The coming slavery"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Fairman, Frank
Description
An account of the resource
Place of Publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Annotated in pencil "i.e., Theodore R. Wright" under author's name on title page. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The Spencer article appeared in Contemporary Review 45 (April 1884).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Modern Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT86
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Herbert Spencer on socialism: A reply to the article "The coming slavery") identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Conway Tracts
Herbert Spencer
Socialism