1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/acb4612ea498fd668dd22f20d9478acb.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LdoMZ86XqyRlCoc3V9tGN22CCtbYO4W-xJO4bWGHaHcs-6y2GuHivdrp9L2ZhpWE66Duxz0CSu4HeCcfJ4djEZ0TPm7xUGYOYvPTylFXdd7GO8PFHg0lgiKIcHpSehHD6DIb8JFRZAQPh1jsbJY6N%7EH0nxpWrj8nkCL15yoxddtwMFYfgB6qETrvOEbgg6dlmOIsZCdqwsEypt6VsH9NQ1-5aRPkYlm83k75kL%7EEuNOKxpD0j-M3WvWFaQI3j970kO%7E%7Ebfnlc3ICulkujg%7ET6d8dmU0wz%7E1jrFQluWTNQfUbuSD9ZLAgtn1n1I2pEAXY0UNIp7YNG2cbL3KpCo8HKw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
36647f66265b1e8d2d59127d35ecefba
PDF Text
Text
PRIGE TWOPENCE.
SOCIALISM
anU IJrarticr
BEING
A LECTURE DELIVERED TO A WORK
ING CLASS AUDIENCE.
KARL PEARSON.
SECOKD
EDITION
LONDON:
W. REEVES, 185, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C,
�Note to Second Edition.
This lecture delivered early in 1884, and afterwards
printed as a pamphlet, seems somewhat out of place
in 1887. Things have been rapidly changing in the
last three years. The discontent of the hand
workers has become greater and more manifest; if
I read the times aright, we are still only at the
threshold of the social crisis. The socialist of the
market-place has accomplished many things, of
which one only seems to me of real value. The
“ Church Parade ” is a brilliant inspiration and will
do much good if it brings home to our shepherds how
completely they have been neglecting the herd in
order to pipe to the dancing of their mistresses,
Wealth and Power. On the other hand the need
for a scientific exposition of evolutionary Socialism
is as pressing and as unsupplied as ever. It is only
after repeated request from the publisher that I
have consented to a reprint in its present form of a
pamphlet which has no claim to be a scientific
treatment of a very difficult and urgent problem.
Inner Temple,
K.P.
March 6th, 1887,
�To E.
C.
This lecture has been printed just as it was delivered
You would have wished it carefully revised. Other
labour has hindered my touching it, and it now seems
better to let its simple language stand. It was addressed
to simple folk ; had it been intended for a middle-class
audience it would have adopted a more logical, but un
doubtedly harsher tone. The selfishness of the ‘ upper ’
classes arises to a great extent from ignorance, but these
are times in which such ignorance itself is criminal. The
object of this pamphlet will be fulfilled should it bring
home even to one or two that truth, which I have learnt
from you, namely—that the higher socialism of our time
does not strive for a mere political reorganization, it is
labouring for a renascence of morality.
K. P
Inner Temple, Christmas Eve, 1884.
�SOCIALISM:
IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
-------- 0--------
During the past year there was a great deal of
discussion in the newspapers—and out of them_
concerning the dwellings of the so-called poor.
Numerous philanthropical people wrote letters and
articles describing the extreme misery and unhealthy
condition of many of our London courts and alleys.
The Prince of Wales got up in the House of Lords
and remarked that he had visited several of the most
■deplorable slums in the Holborn district, and found
them “ very deplorable indeed 1” The whole sub
ject seemed an excellent one out of which to make
political capital. The leader of the Conservatives
wrote an article in a Tory magazine on the dwellings
of the poor. He told us that things are much
better in the country than they are in the towns,
that the great landlords look after the housing of
the agricultural labourers. It is the employers of
labour, the capitalists, who are at fault. They
■ought to provide proper dwellings for their work
people. This was the opinion of Lord Salisbury, a
great owner of land. But the Conservatives having
come forward as the friends of the working-men, it
seemed impossible, with a view to future elections,
to let the matter rest there. Accordingly, Mr.
Joseph Chamberlain, a Radical leader and capital
ist, wrote another article in a Liberal magazine, to
�SOCIALISM : IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
5
show that it is no business whatever of the employers
of labour to look after the housing of their work
people. It is the duty of the owner of the land to
see that decent houses are built upon it. In other
words, the only men, who under our present social
regime could make vast improvements, threw the
responsibility off their own shoulders. “ Very
deplorable, indeed,” said Lord Salisbury, “ but of
course not the landlord’s fault; why does not that
greedy fellow, the capitalist, look after his work
people ?” “ Nothing could be more wretched; I
am sure it will lead to a revolution,” ejaculated Mr.
Chamberlain, “ but, of course, it has nothing to do
with the capitalist; why does not that idle person,
that absolutely useless landlord, build more decent
houses ?” Then the landlord and capitalist for once
agreed and thought it would be well to appoint a
Royal Commission, which meant, that after a certain
amount of philanthropic twaddle and a vast ocean
of political froth the whole matter would end in
nothing or an absolutely fruitless Act of Parliament.
*
Any change would have to be made at the cost of
either the landlord or capitalist, or of both, and
whether we like it or not, it is these two who practcally govern this country. They are not likely to
empty their pockets for our benefit. It is generally
known how strong the interest of the land
lords is in both Houses of Parliament, but this is
comparatively small when we measure the
interests of the capitalists. You will be surprised,
if you investigate the matter, to find the large
proportion of the House of Commons which re
presents the interests of capital. The number of
members of that House who are themselves
* Three years afterwards we see it has ended in
nothing—-not even an Act
�6
SOCIALISM :
employers of labour, who are connected with grea
commercial interests, who are chairmen or directors
of large capitalistic companies, or in some other way
are representatives of capital (as well as of their
constituents) is quite astounding. It is said that
one large railway company alone can muster forty
votes on a division; while the railway interests, if
combined, might form a coalition which, in con
ceivable cases, would be of extreme danger to the
State. I have merely touched upon this matter to
remind you how thoroughly we are governed in this
country by a class. The government of this country
is not in the hands of the people. It is mere self
deception for us to suppose that all classes have a
voice in the management of our affairs. The
educative class (the class which labours with its
head) and the productive class (the class which
labours with its hands) have little or no real
influence in the House of Commons. The govern
ing class is the class of wealth, in both of its
branches—owners of land and owners of capital.
This class naturally governs in its own interests,
and the interests of wealth are what we must seek
for would we understand the motive for any
particular form of foreign or domestic policy on the
part of either great State party.
It may strike you that I have wandered very far
from the topic with which I started, namely, the
dwellings of the poor, but I wanted to point out to
you, by a practical example, how very unlikely it is
that a reform, urgently needed by one class of the
community, will be carried out efficiently by another
governing class, when that reform must be paid for
out of the latter’s pockets. Confirmation of this
view may be drawn from the fact that the govern
ing class pretend to have discovered in 1884 only
�IN THEORY AND PRACTICE,
7
that the poor are badly housed. There is
something almost laughable in all the pother lately
raised about the housing of the poor. So far as my
own experience goes—and I would ask if that is not
a fact ?—the poor are not worse housed in 1884 than
they were in 1874. The evil is one of very old
standing. It was crying out for reform ten years
ago, twenty years ago, forty years ago. More than
forty years ago—in 1842—there was a report issued
by a “Commission on the sanitary condition of
the labouring population of Great Britain.” The
descriptions given in that report are of a precisely
similar character to what was put before the public
in a little tract entitled the “ Bitter Cry of Outcast
London.” In that report we hear of 40,000 people
in Liverpool alone living in cellars underground.
We are told that the annual number of deaths from
fever, generated by uncleanliness and overcrowding
in the dwellings of the poor, was then in England
and Wales double the number of persons killed in
the battle of Waterloo. We hear of streets without
drainage, of workshops without ventilation, and of
ten to twenty people sleeping in the same room,
often five in a bed, rarely with any regard to sex.
The whole essence of this report was to show that
owing to the great capitalistic industries, the
working classes, if they had not become poorer, had
become more demoralized. They had been forced
to crowd together and occupy unhealthy and often
ruinous dwellings. The governing class and the
public authorities scarcely troubled themselves
about the matter, but treated the working classes as
machines rather than as men. We see, then, that
precisely the same evil was crying loudly for remedy
in 1842 as it cries now in 1884. We ask why has
there been no remedy applied during all these
�8
SOCIALISM :
years ? There can only be two answers to that
question; either no remedy is possible, or else thosem whose power the remedy lies refuse to apply it.
We must consider these two points.
Is no remedy possible ? Not long ago a thinking
Conservative (if such be not a contradiction in terms !)
stated that although he recognised the deplorable
misery of the poorer members of the working classes,
he still held no remedy was possible. The misery
might become so intense that an outbreak would
intervene ; still, when the outbreak was over, matters
would sink back into their old course. There must
be poor, and the poor would be miserable. No
*
violent revolution, no peaceful reform, could per
manently benefit the poorer class of toilers. It was,
so to speak, a law of nature (if not of God) that
society should have a basis of misery. History
proved this to be always the case.
It is to this latter phrase I want to call your
attention—History proved this to be always the case.
Our Conservative friend was distinctly right in his
method when he appealed to history. That is peculi
arly the method which ought to be made use of for
the solution of all social and political problems. It
is of the utmost importance to induce the working
classes to study social and political problems from
the historical standpoint. Do not listen to mere
theory, or to the mere talk of rival political agitators.
Endeavour, if possible, to see how like problems
have been treated by different peoples in different
ages, and with what measure of success. The study
of history is, I am aware, extremely difficult, because
the popular history books tell us only of wars and of
kings, and very little of the real life of the people—
* This seems to be the doctrine recently expounded
to “ Church paraders,” March, 1887.
�IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
9
how they worked, how they were fed, and how they
were housed. But the real mission of history is to
tell us how the great mass of the people toiled and
lived; to tell us of their pleasure and of their
misery. That is the only history that can help us
in social problems. Does, then, history tell us that
there always has been, and therefore always must
be, a large amount of misery at the basis of society ?
The question is one really of statistics, and extremely
difficult to answer; but, after careful investigation, I
must state that I have come to a conclusion totally
different from that of our Conservative friend. I
admit, in the words of the man who worked for the
poor in Galilee, that at all times and places “ the poor
are always with you ” ; but the amount of poverty as
well as the degree of misery attending it has varied
immensely. I have made special investigation of
the condition of the artisan class in Germany some
three to four hundred years ago, and do not hesitate
to assert that anything like the condition of the
.courts and dwellings of poorer London was then
totally unknown. If this be true, the argument from
history is false. The artisan class has occupied a
firmer and more substantial position in times gone
by than it at present occupies. If it has sunk in the
scale of comfort, it can certainly rise. In other
words, a remedy for the present state of things does
seem to me possible. Should any of you want to
know why the working classes were better off four
hundred years ago than they are at present, I must
state it as my own opinion, that it was due to a
better social system. The social system, so far as
the workman was concerned, was based upon the
guild, and the political system of those old towns
was based as a rule upon the guilds. Thus the
union which directed the workman in his work, and
�IO
socialism.
:
brought his class together for social purposes,
was practically the same as that which directed the
municipal government of his city. If you would
exactly understand what that means, you must
suppose the trades unions of to-day to take a large
share in the government of London. If they did so,
how long do you think the dwellings of the poor
would remain what they are ? Do you believe the
evil would remain another forty years ? or that in
1920 it would be necessary to shuffle out of im
mediate action by another Royal Commission ?
As I have said, the guilds of working men had
originally a large share in municipal government.
The city guilds, as you know, are still very wealthy
bodies, and have great authority in the city. This
is all that remains in London of the old system of
working men’s guilds taking a part in the manage
ment of the city’s affairs.
In old days, then, the labouring classes were
united in guilds and these guilds had a considerable
share in local government. The social and political
system was thus, to some extent, based upon labour.
Such an organization of society, we call socialistic.
The workmen of four hundred years ago were better
off than are the workmen of to-day, because the old
institutions were more socialistic—in other words,
society was organized rather on the basis of labour
than the basis of wealth. A society based upon
wealth, since it grants power and place to the
owners of something which is in the hands of
a few individuals, may be termed individual
istic. To-day we live in an individualistic state. I
believe the workman of four hundred years ago was
better off than his brother now, because he formed
part of a socialistic rather than an individualistic
system. I believe a remedy possible for the present
�IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
II
state of affairs, because history seems to teach us that
the artisan has a firmer and happier position under a
socialism than under an individualism. It also
teaches us that some forms of socialism have existed
in the past, and may therefore be possible in the
present or future. I hold, and I would ask you to
believe with me, that a remedy is possible. If it is, we
are thrown back on the alternative that the govern
ing class has refused or neglected to apply it. We
have seen that the evil did not arise or did not
accumulate to such an extent where society was
partly based upon labour; we are, therefore, forced
to the probable conclusion, that the evil has arisen
and continues to subsist, because our social and
political system is based upon wealth rather than
upon labour—because we live under an individualism
rather than under a socialism. It is the fault of our
present social system, and not a law of history, that
the toilers should be condemned to extreme misery
and poverty.
We have now to consider the following questions:—
What do we mean by labour and a social system based
upon labour ? By what means can we attempt to
convert a system based upon wealth to one based
upon labour; in other words, how shall we proceed
to convert our present individualism into a socialism ?
In the latter question it will be necessary to include
the consideration of the attitude which the artisan
class should itself take with regard to organizations
for socialistic change, and h@w it should endeavour
to take political action especially with regard to the
two great capitalistic parties.
Let me first endeavour to explain what I under
stand by labour. You may imagine, perhaps at
first, that I refer only to labour of the hand—such
abour as is required to make a pair of boots or turn
�12
SOCIALISM :
a lathe. But I conceive labour to be something or
far wider extent than this. I conceive it to include
all work, whether work of the head or of the hand,
which is needful or. profitable to the community at
large. The man who puts cargo into a ship is no
more or less a labourer than the captain who
directs her course across the ocean; nor is either
more of a labourer than the mathematician or astro
nomer whose calculations and observations enable the
captain to know which direction he shall take when
he is many hundred miles from land. The shoe
maker or the postman are no more labourers than
the clerk who sits in a merchant’s office or the judge
who sits on the bench. The schoolmaster, thewriter and the actor are all true labourers. Insome cases they may be overpaid; in many
they are underpaid. Men of wealth have been
known to pay the governess who teaches their
children less than they pay their cook, and treat her
with infinitely less respect. I have laid stress on
the importance of labour of the head, because I
have met working men—although few—who believed
nothing but labour of the hand could have any value’;
all but labourers with the hand were idlers. You
have doubtless heard of the victory gained last year
by English troops in Egypt. Now, how do you sup
pose that victory was gained ? Were the English
soldiers a bit braver than the Arabs ? Were they
stronger ? Not in the least. They won the victory
because they were better disciplined, because they
had better weapons—shortly, because what we may
term their organisation was better. That organiza
tion was due to labour of the head. Now, what
happened in Egypt is going on in the world at large
every day. It is not always the stronger, but the
better organized, the better educated man who goes
�IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
I J.
ahead. What is true of individual men is true of
nations. The better organised, the better educated
nation is victorious in the battle of life. We English
have been so successful because we were well
organized, because we were better educated than
Hindoos, Zulus, and all the races we have con
quered. You must never forget how much of that
organization, that education, is due to labourers with
the head. Some of you may be indifferent to the
great empire of England, to this superiority
of Englishmen, but let me assure you that, small asin some cases is the comfort of the English working
classes, it is on the average large compared with
that of an inferior race—compared, say, with the
abject misery of the Egyptian peasant. I want, if
possible, to point out to you the need for sympathy
between labour of all kinds—that labourers with the
hand and labourers with the head are mutually
dependent. They are both true labourers as
opposed to the idlers—the drones, , who, by some
chance having a monopoly of wealth, live on thelabour of others. I would say to every man—
“ Friend, what is your calling, what are you doing
for society at large ? Are you making its shoes, are
you teaching its children, are you helping to main
tain order and forward its business ? If you are
doing none of this, are you relieving its work hours
by administering to its play ? Do you bring plea
sure to the people as an actor, a- writer, or a
painter ? If you are doing none of this, if you are
simply a possessor of wealth, struggling to amuse
yourself, and pass through life for your own pleasure,
then—why, then, you are not wanted here, and the
sooner you clear out, bag and baggage, the better
for us—and perhaps for yourself.” Do you grasp
now the significance of a society based upon labour ?
�14
SOCIALISM
The possessor of wealth, simp y because he ha
wealth, would have no place in such a society. The
workers would remove him even as the worker bees
eject the drones from their hive. ,
Society ought to be one vast guild of labourers—
workers with the head and workers with the hand—
and so organised there would be no place in it for
those who merely live on the work of others. In a
political or social system based upon labour it would
be the mere possessor of wealth who would have no
power ; how far we are at present from such a social
ism maybe best observed by noting that wealth now
has almost all political and social power—labour little
or none.
We have now reached what I conceive to be the
fundamental axiom of Socialism. Society must be
■organised on the basis of labour, and, therefore, political
power, the power of organising, must be in the
hands of labour.
That labour, as I have
endeavoured to impress upon you, is of two kinds.
There is labour of the hand, which provides
necessaries for all society: there is the labour of
the head, which produces all that we term progress,
and enables any individual society to maintain its
place in the battle of life—the labour which
educates and organises. I have come across a
tendency in some workers with the hand to suppose
all folk beside themselves to be idlers—social
drones, supported by their work. I admit that the
great mass of idlers are in what are termed the
‘upper and middle classes of society.’ But this
arises from the fact that society, being graduated
solely according to wealth, the people with the most
money, and who are most idle, of course take their
place in these viciously named ‘upper classes.’ In
a labour scale they would naturally appear at the
�IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
15
very bottom, and form ‘ the dregs of population.’
It is true the labourer with the head is, as a rule,
better clothed, housed, and fed than the labourer
with the hand, but this often arises from the fact
that he is also a capitalist. Still, if the labourer
with the head, whose labour is.his sole source of liveli
hood, is better clothed, housed, and fed than the
artisan, it does no show that in all cases he is earn
ing more than his due; on the contrary, it may
denote that the artisan is earning far less than his
due. The difference, in fact, often represents the
work which goes to support the drones of our pre
sent social system.
At this point I reach what I conceive to be the
second great axiom of true Socialism. All forms of
labour are equally honourable. No form of labour
which is necessary for society can disgrace the
man who practises it or place him in a lower social
grade than any other form of labour. Let us look
at this point somewhat more closely, for it is of the
first importance. So long as the worker looks upon
his work as merely work for himself—considers it
only as a means to his own subsistence, and values
it only as it satisfies his own wants, so long one form
of work will be more degrading than another. To
shovel mud into a cart will be a lower form of work
than to make a pair of shoes, and to make shoes
will not be such high-class labour as to direct a
factory. But there is another way of regarding
work, in which all forms of real labour appear of
equal value—viz., when the labourer looks at
his work not with regard to himself, but with
regard to society at large. Let him con
sider his work as something necessary tor
society, as a condition of its existence, and then
all gradations vanish. It is just as necessary for
�i6
SOCIALISM :
society that its mud should be cleared from the
streets, as that it should have shoes, or again, as
that its factories should be directed. Once let the
workman recognise that his labour is needful for
society, and whatever its character, it becomes
honourable at once. In other words, from the
social standpoint all labour is equally honourable.
We might even go so far as to assert that the
lowest forms of labour are the more honourable,
because they involve the greater personal sacrifice
for the need of society. Once let this second axiom
of true Socialism be recognised—the equality of
every form of labour—and all the vicious distinc
tions of caste—the false lines which society has
drawn between one class of workers and another—
must disappear. The degradation of labour must
cease. Once admit that labour, though differing in
kind, as the shoemaker’s from the blacksmith’s, is
equal in degree, and all class barriers are broken
down. In other words, in a socialistic state, or in
a society based upon labour, there can be no
difference of class. All labourers, whether of the
hand or the head, must meet on equal terms ; they
are alike needful to society; their value will depend
only on the fashion and the energy with which they
perform their particular duties.
Before leaving this subject of labour, there is one
point, however, which must be noticed. I have
said that all forms of labour are equally honourable,
because'we may regard them as equally necessary
for society. But still the effects of various kinds of
labour on the individual will be different. The man
who spends his whole day in shovelling up mud
will hardly be as intelligent as the shoemaker or
engineer. His labour does not call for the same
exercise of intelligence, nor draw out his ingenuity to
�IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
17
the same extent. Thus, although his labour is
equally honourable, it has not such a good influence
on the man himself. Hence the hours of labour, in
such occupations, ought to be as short as possible ;
sufficient leisure ought to be given to those engaged
in the more mechanical and disagreeable forms of
toil to elevate and improve themselves apart from
their work. When we admit that all labour is
•equally honourable, and therefore deserving of
equal wage, then to educate the labourer will not
lead him to despise his work. It will only lead him
to appreciate and enjoy more fully his leisure.
This question of leisure is a matter of the utmost
importance. We hear much of the demand for
shorter hours of labour; but how is the increased
spare time to be employed ? Many a toiler looks
with envy upon the extravagant luxury of the
wealthy, and cries, not unnaturally, “ What right
have you to enjoy all this, while I can hardly
procure the necessaries of life ? ” But there is a
matter in which I could wish the working classes
would envy the wealthy even more than they might
reasonably do their physical luxury—namely, their
education. There is to me something unanswerable
in the cry which the workman might raise against
the wealthy—“ What right have you to be educated,
while I am ignorant ? ” Far more unanswerable
than the cry—“What right have you to be rich
while I am poor ? ” I could wish a cry for educa
tion might arise from the toilers as the cry for bread
went up in the forties. It is the one thing which
would render an increase of leisure really valuable
to the workers—which would enable them to guide
themselves, and assist society through the dangerous
storms which seem surely gathering in the near
future. Leisure employed in education, in self
�18
SOCIALISM :
improvement, seems to me the only means by which
the difference in character between various forms of
labour can be equalised. This appears a point on
which the labourers with the head can practically
assist those with the hand. Let the two again
unite for that mutual assistance which is so
necessary, if between them they are to reorganise
society into one vast guild of labour.
If we pass for a moment from the possibilities of
the present to those of a distant future, we might
conceive the labourers with the hand to attain such
a degree of education that workers of both kinds
might be fused together. The same man might
labour with his pen in the morning and with his
shovel after mid-day. That, I think, would be the
ideal existence in which society, as an entire body,
would progress at the greatest possible rate. I have
endeavoured, then, to lay before you what I under
stand by labour; how all true labour is equally
honourable and deserving of an equal wage. If
many of the anomalies, much of the misery of our
present state of society would disappear, were it
organized on a socialistic or labour basis, it then
becomes necessary to consider in what manner the
labour basis differs from, and is opposed to, the
present basis of wealth.
In order to illustrate what the present basis of
wealth means, let me put to you a hypothetical case.
Let us suppose three men on an island separated
from the rest of the world. We may also suppose
there to be a sufficient supply of seed and ploughs,
and generally of agricultural necessaries. If now,
one of the three men were to assert that the
island, the seed, and the ploughs belonged to him,
and his two comrades for some reason— or want of
reason—accepted his assertion, let us trace what
�IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
19
would follow. Obviously, he would have an entire
monopoly of all the means of sustaining life on the
island. He could part with them at whatever rate
he pleased, and could insist upon the produce ot
all the labour, which it would be possible to
extract from the two men, in return for supplying
them with the barest necessities of existence. He
would naturally do nothing; they would till the
ground with his implements, and sow his seed and
store it in his barn. After this he might employ them
in work tending to increase his luxuries, in providing
him with as fine a house and as gorgeous furniture
as they were capable of producing. He would
probably allow them to build themselves shanties as
protection from the weather, and grant them
sufficient food to sustain life. All their time, after
providing these necessaries for themselves, would
be devoted to his service. He would be landlord and
capitalist, having a complete monopoly of wealth^
He could practically treat the other two men as
slaves. Let us somewhat extend our example, and
suppose this relation to hold between the one
man and a considerable number of men on the
island. Then it might be really advantageous
for all the people on the island if the one man
directed their labour. We may suppose him to be a
practical farmer, who thoroughly understood his
business, so, by his directing the others, the greatest
amount possible would be produced from the land.
As such a director of farming operations, he would
be a labourer with the head, and worthy as any man
under him to receive his hire. He would have as great
a claim as any one he directed to the necessaries
of life produced by the labourers with the hand. In
a socialistic scheme he would still remain director ;
he would still receive his share of the produce, and
�20
SOCIALISM :
the result of the labour of the community would be
divided according to the labour of its members. On
the other hand, if our farm-director were owner ot
all things on the island, he might demand not only
the share due to him for his labour of the head, but
also that all the labour of the other inhabitants
should be directed to improving his condition rather
than their own. After providing for themselves the
bare necessities of life, the other islanders might be
called upon to spend all the rest of their time in
ministering to his luxury. He could demand this
because he would have a monopoly of all the land
and all the wealth of the island; such a state of
affairs on the island would be an individualism or a
society based upon wealth. I think this example
will show clearly the difference between a society
based upon labour and one based upon wealth.
Commonplace as the illustration may seem, it is
one which can be extended, and yet rarely is
extended to the state of affairs we find in our own
country. We have but to replace our island-land
owner and capitalist by a number of landowners and
capitalists. These will have a monopoly of land and
of wealth. They can virtually force the labouring
classes, who have neither land nor capital, to
administer to their luxury in return for the more
needful supports of life. The limit of comfort to
which they can reduce the labouring classes depends
on the following considerations, which, of course,
vary from time to time:—First, their own self
interest in keeping at least a sufficient supply of
labour in such decent health and strength that it
can satisfy their wants; secondly, their fear that too
great pinching may lead to a forcible revolution;
and, thirdly, a sort of feeling—arising partly per
haps from religion, partly perhaps from purely
�IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
21
mechanical sympathy—of dislike at the sight of
suffering.
The greater demand there is for luxury on the part
of the wealthy, the smaller is the time that the
labouring classes can devote to the improvement of
their own condition, the increase of their own com
fort. Let us take a possible case, which may not
be the absolute truth, but which will exemplify the
law we have stated. Suppose that the labouring
classes work eight hours a day. Now, these eight
hours are not only spent in producing the absolute
necessities of existence, and the degree of comfort
in which our toilers live, but in producing also all
the luxuries enjoyed by the rich. Let us suppose,
for example, that five hours suffice to sow and to
till, and to weave and to carry and fetch—shortly,
to produce the food-supply of the country, and the
average comfort which the labourer enjoys as to
house and raiment. What, then, becomes of the
other three hours’ work ? It is consumed in making
luxuries of all kinds for the wealthy, fine houses,
rich furniture, dainty food, and so forth. These
three hours are spent, not in improving the condition
of the labourer’s own class, not in building themselves
better dwellings or weaving themselves better
clothes, nor, on the other hand, are they spent in
public works for the benefit of the whole comm unity
but solely in supplying luxuries for wealthy indi
viduals. The wealthy can demand these luxuries
because they possess a monopoly of land and of
capital, shortly, of the means of subsistence. This
monopoly of the means of subsistence makes them
in fact, if not in name, slave-owners. Such is the
result of the individualistic as opposed to the
socialistic system. We see now why the houses of
the poor . are deplorable—namely, because that
�22
SOCIALISM :
labour which should be devoted to improving them
is consumed in supplying the luxuries of the rich.
We may state it then, as a general law of a society
based upon wealth—that the misery of the labouring
classes is directly proportional to the luxury of the
wealthy. This law is a very old one indeed; the
only strange thing is, that it is every day forgotten.
Having noted, then, wherein the evil of the social
system based upon wealth lies, we have lastly to
consider how far, and by what means, it is possible
to remedy it.
The only true method of investigating a question
of this kind is, I feel sure, the historical one. Let
us ask ourselves how in past ages one state of society
has been replaced by another, and then, if possible,
apply the general law to the present time.
Now, there are a considerable number of socialistic
teachers—I will not call them false Socialists—who
are never weary of crying out that our present state
in society is extremely unjust, and that it must be
destroyed. They are perpetually telling the labour
ing classes that the rich unjustly tyrannize over
them, and that this tyranny must be thrown off.
According to these teachers, it would seem as if the
rich had absolutely entered into a conspiracy to
defraud the poor. Now, although I call myself a
Socialist, I must tell you plainly that I consider such
teaching not only very foolish, but extremely harm
ful. It can arise only from men who are ignorant,
or from men who seek to win popularity from the
working-classes by appealing to their baser passions.
So far from aiding true Socialism, it stirs up class
hatred, and instead of bringing classes together, it
raises a barrier of bitterness and hostility between
them. It is idle to talk of a conspiracy of the rich
against the poor, of one class against another. A
�IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
23
man is born into his class, and into the traditions of
his class. He is not responsible for his birth,
whether it be to wealth or to labour. He is born to
certain luxuries, and he is never taught to consider
them as other than his natural due; he does as his
class does, and as his fathers have done before him.
His fault is not one of malice, but of ignorance.
He does not know how his luxuries directly increase
the misery of the poor, because no one has ever
brought it home to him. Although a slave-owner
he is an unconscious slave-owner. Shortly, he wants
educating ; not educating quite in the same sense as
the labouring classes want educating, he probably
has book-learning enough. He wants teaching that
there is a higher social morality than the morality
of a society based upon wealth. Namely, he must
be taught that mere ownership has no social value
at all—that the sole thing of social value is labour,
labour of head or labour of hand : and that in
dividual ownership of wealth has arisen in the
past out of a very crude and insufficient method
of representing such labour. The education of
the so-called upper or wealth-owning classes is
thus an imperative necessity.
They must be
taught a new morality. Here, again, is a point
on which we see the need of a union between
the educative and hand-working classes. The
labourers with the head must come to the assist
ance of the labourers with the hand by educating the
wealthy. Do not think this is a visionary project;
two great Englishmen at least, John Ruskin and
William Morris, are labouring at this task; they are
endeavouring to teach the capitalistic classes that
the morality of a society based upon wealth is a
mere immorality.
But you will tell me that education is a very long
�24
SOCIALISM:
process, and that meantime the poor are suffering,
and must continue to suffer. Are not the labouring
classes unjustly treated, and have they not a right
to something better ? Shortly, ought they not to
enforce that right ? Pardon me, if I tell you plainly
that I do not understand what such abstract
‘justice ’ or ‘right’ means. I understand that the
comfort of the labouring classes is far below what
it would be if society were constituted on the
basis of labour. I believe that on such a basis
there would be less misery in the world, and there
fore it is a result to be aimed at. But because this
is a result which all men should strive for, it does
not follow that we gain anything by calling it a
‘right.’ A ‘right’ suggests something which a
man may take by force, if he cannot obtain it other
wise. It suggests that the labouring classes should
revolt against the capitalistic classes and seize what
is their ‘ right.’
Let us consider for a moment what is the mean
ing of such a revolt. I shall again take history as
our teacher. History shows us that whenever the
misery of the labouring classes reaches a certain
limit they always do break into open rebellion. It
is the origin, more or less, of all revolutions
throughout the course of time. But history teaches
us just as surely that such revolutions are accom
panied by intense misery both for the labouring and
wealthy classes. If this infliction of misery had
ever resulted in the reconstruction of society we
might even hope for good from a revolution, but we
invariably find that something like the old system
springs again out of the chaos, and the same old
distinction of classes, the same old degra
dation of labour is sure to reappear. That is
precisely the teaching of the Paris Commune or
�IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
2$
again of the Anabaptist Kingdom of God in
Munster. Apart from this the labourers with the
hand will never be permanently successful in a
revolution, unless they have the labourers with
the head with them; they will want organiza
tion, they will want discipline, and this must fail
unless education stands by them. Now, the
labourers with the head have usually deserted the
labourers with the hand when the latter rise in
revolt, because they are students of history and
they know too well from history that revolution has
rarely permanently benefited the revolting classes.
You may accept it as a primary law of history, that
no great change ever occurs with a leap, no great social
reconstruction, which will permanently benefit any
class of the community, is ever brought about by a
revolution. It is the result of a gradual growth, a
progressive change, what we term an evolution. This
is as much a law of history as of nature. Try as
you will, you cannot make a man out of a child in a
day, you must wait and let him grow, and gradually
educate him and replace his childish ideas by the
thoughts of a man. Precisely so you must treat
society; you must gradually change it, educate it,
if you want a permanent imprbvement in its nature.
Feeling, as I do, the extreme misery which is brought
about by the present state of society based upon
wealth, I should say to the working-classes, ‘ Revolt,’
if history did not teach me only too surely, that
revolution would fail of its object. All progress
towards a better state of things must be gradual.
Progress proceeds by evolution, not by revolution.
For this reason I would warn you against socialistic
teachers who talk loudly of ‘ right ’ and ‘justice
who seek to stir up class against class. Such teach
ing merely tends towards revolution ; and revolution
�26
SOCIALISM :
js not justifiable, because it is never successful. It
never achieves its object. Such teachers are not
true socialists, because they have not studied history; because their teaching really impedes our
progress towards socialism. We might even take
an example from our island with its landlord
capitalist tyrannizing over the other inhabitants.
We have supposed him to be a practical farmer
capable of directing the labours of the others. Now,
suppose the inhabitants were to rise in revolt and
throw him into the sea, what would happen ? Why,
the very next year they would not know what to sow
or how to sow it; their agricultural operations would
fail, and there would very soon be a famine on the
island, which would be far worse than the old tyranny.
Something very similar would occur in this country
if the labouring classes were to throw all our
capitalists into the sea. There would be no one
capable of directing the factories or the complex
operations of trade and commerce; these would all
collapse, and there would very soon be a famine in
this island also. You must bring your capitalist to
see that he is only a labourer, a labourer with the
head, and deserves wage accordingly. You can
only do this by two methods. The first is to educate
him to a higher morality, the second is to restrict
him by the law of the land. Now, the law of the
land is nothing more or less than the morality of
the ruling class, and so long as political power is in
the hands of the capitalists, and these are ‘ uneduc
ated,’they are unlikely to restrict their own profits
If, then, my view that we can only approach
socialism by a gradual change is correct, we have
before us two obvious lines of conduct which we
may pursue at the same time. The first, and I am
inclined to think the more important, is the educa-
�.
IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
27
tion of the wealthy classes; they must be taught
from childhood up that the only moral form of
society is a society based upon labour, they must be
taught always to bear in mind the great law—that
the misery of the poor is ever directly proportional
to the luxury of the rich. This first object ought to
be essentially the duty of the labourers with the
head. Let the labourer with the hand ever regard
himself as working in concert with the labourer with
the head—the two are in truth but members of one
large guild, the guild of labour, upon which basis
society has to be reconstructed. The second line of
conduct, which is practically open to all true
Socialists, is the attainment of political power;
wealth must cease to be the governing power in
this country, it must be replaced by labour. The
educative classes and the handworkers must rule
the country; only so will it be possible to replace
the wealth basis by the labour basis. The first step
in this direction must necessarily be the granting
of the franchise to all hand-workers. This is a very
practical and definite aim to work for. Now, I have
already hinted that I consider both great political
parties really to represent wealth. Hence I do not
believe that any true Socialist is either Liberal or
Conservative, but at present it would be idle to think
of returning socialistic members to Parliament
*
Socialists will best forward their aims at present by
supporting that party which is likely to increase the
franchise. So that to be a true Socialist at present
means, I think, to support the ‘ Liberal ’ Govern
ment. This support is not given because we are
* This was written in 188L The extension of the
franchise, incomplete as it is, has since considerably in
creased the possibility of returning socialistic members
for at least one or two towns.
�28
SOCIALISM :
‘ Liberals,’ but because, by it, we can best aid the
cause of Socialism. But with regard to the fran
chise, there is a point which I cannot too strongly
insist upon. If the complete enfranchisement of
the hand-worker is to forward the socialistic cause
he must be educated so as to use it for that purpose,
Now, we have laid it down as a canon of Socialism
that all labour is equally honourable; in a society
based upon labour there can be no distinction of
class. Thus, the true Socialist must be superior
to class-interests. He must look beyond his own
class to the wants and habits of society at large.
Hence, if the franchise is to be really profitable, the
hand-worker must be educated to see beyond the
narrow bounds of his own class. He must be
taught to look upon society as a whole, and respect
the labour of all its varied branches. He must
endeavour to grasp the wants and habits of other
forms of labour than his own, whether it be labour of
the head or of the hand. He must recognize to the
full that all labour is equally honourable, and has
equal claims on society at large. The shoemaker
does not despise the labour of the blacksmith, but he
must be quite sure that the labour of the school
master, of the astronomer, and of the man who
works with his brains, is equally valuable to the com
munity. Here, again, we see how the labourer with
the head can come to the assistance of the labourer
with the hand. In order that the franchise may be
practically of value to the artisan, he must grasp how
to use it for broader purposes than mere class aims.
To do this he requires to educate himself. I repeat
that I should like to hear a cry go up from the
hand-workers for education and leisure for education,
even as it went up forty years ago for bread. For
the mind is of equal importance with the stomach
�IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
29
and needs its bread also. Apart from the franchise,
there is another direction in which, I think, practi
cal steps might be taken, namely, to obtain for
trades-unions, or rather, as I should prefer to call
them, labour-guilds—a share or influence in munici
pal government. Let there be a labour-guild
influence in every parish, and on every vestry. As
I have said before, I cannot conceive that the
housing of the poor would be what it is if the trades
unions had been represented in the government of
London. Such a representation would be the first
approach to a communal organization based upon
labour, and ultimately to a society on the same basis.
You can hardly support your trades-unions too
energetically, and you have in this respect taught
the labourers with the head a lesson. These
labourers with the head are just beginning to form
their labour-guilds too—guilds of teachers and guilds
of writers—and it is to these labour guilds, and to
your trades-unions that we must look for much use
ful work in the future.
These surely are practical aims enough for the
’ present, but I may perhaps be allowed to point out
to you what direction I think legislative action
should take, supposing the franchise granted to all
hand-workers. As I have endeavoured to show,
any sudden change would be extremely dangerous ;
it would upset our old social arrangements, and
would not give us any stable new institutions. It
would embitter class against class, and not destroy
class altogether. We must endeavour to pass
gradually from the old to the new state; from the
state in which wealth is the social basis to one in
which labour is the sole element by which we judge
men. Now, in order that wealth should cease
to be mistress, her monopoly of the means of sub
�30
SOCIALISM :
sistence must be destroyed. In other words, land
and capital must cease to be in the hands of in
dividuals.
We must have nationalization of
the land and nationalization of capital. Every
Socialist is a land-nationalizer and a capital-nationalizer.
It will be sufficient now to consider the first
problem, the nationalization of the land. Mr.
George says, take the land and give no compensation.
That |is what I term a revolutionary measure; it
attempts to destroy and reconstruct in a moment.
If history teaches us anything, it tells us that all
such revolutionary measures fail; they bring more
misery than they accomplish good.
Hence,
although I am a land-nationalizer—as every Social
ist must be—I do not believe in Mr. George’s cry of
‘ No compensation.’ Then we have another set ot
land-nationalizers, who would buy the landlords
out. Let us see what this means. The landlords
would be given, in return for their lands, a large
sum of money, which would have to be borrowed by
the nation, and the interests on which would
increase for ever the taxes of the country. In other
words, we should be perpetuating the wealth of the
landlords and their claims to be permanently
supported by the classes that labour. That is not a
socialistic remedy. It would seem, at first sight as
if there were no alternative—either compensation
or no compensation. Yet I think there is a third
course, if we would only try to legislate for the
future as well as for the present. Suppose a bill were
passed to convert all freehold in land into a lease
hold, say, of 8oto ioo years, from the nation.' Here
there would be no question of compensation, and
little real injury to the present landowner, because
the difference between freehold and a hundred
�IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
31
years’ leasehold (at least in towns) is comparatively
small. At the end of a hundred years the nation
would be in possession of all land without having
paid a penny for it, and without violently breaking
up the present social arrangements. In less than
100 years with the land slipping from their fingers
the children of our present landowners would have
learnt that, if they want to live, they must labour.
That would be a great step to true socialism. Pre
cisely as I propose to treat the land I would treat
most forms of capital. With the land, of course,
mines and factories would necessarily pass into the
hands of the nation. Railways would have to be
dealt with in the same fashion. The present com
panies would have a hundred years’ lease instead of
a perpetuity of their property.
These are merely suggestions of how it might be
possible to pass to a stable form of society based
upon labour—to a true socialism. The change
would be stable because it would be gradual; the
state would be socialistic because it would be based
upon labour; while wealth, in its two important
forms—land and capital—would belong alone to the
nation.
Some of you may cry out in astonishment, “ But
what is the use of working for such a socialism, we
shall never live to see it, we shall never enjoy its
happiness.” Quite true, I reply, but there is a
nobler calling than working for ourselves, there is a
higher happiness than self-enjoyment—namely, the
feeling that our labour will have rendered posterity,
will have rendered our children free from the misery
through which we ourselves have had to struggle;
the feeling that our work in life has left the world a
more joyous dwelling-place for mankind than we
found it. The little streak of improvement which
�32
SOCIALISM ; IN THEORY AND IN PRACTICE
each man may leave behind him—the only im
mortality ot which mankind can be sure—is a far
nobler result of labour, whether of hand or of head,
than three-score years of unlimited personal happi
ness.
�
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
Socialism in theory and practice : a lecture delivered to a working class audience
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Note to Second Edition dated March 6th 1887. Lecture first delivered early 1884.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Pearson, Karl
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
W. Reeves
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1887?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T468
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
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 (Socialism in theory and practice : a lecture delivered to a working class audience), 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
Addresses
Socialism
Speeches