-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/fb3aecf685690786d860f89cc48eef15.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PnN%7EuoNkeDTifqlvOalO9KvRKZ2tKRpJjTQovJIyTecwVVyYT9YnYzbXV-0hcECQYuSy75EkoQkqEv%7E9bHHiZVzi8HbSz98EcjnGjJe1j6h7-XU7rOA1QsFrmqSsUm5zPqHlf%7EMGrlZZLQg2hPUGN5Og%7E-eRZhfj8PqAnQjzJuct93fQ7vByx7bpBcASdWgO42PnTVeU8ehTLSyWhiUWdcf5MuHZu28mOSBLmv3PWZxqPUub0x11HX-Yb014-Oa-uEX5sCnDCrVOinyP7%7EVSTzChX0cU20PXQQWP1s3d2VBn0BCaNqTN6wKvQ%7E%7ELObLJ4c%7EPjeecnRPmebWxZMplbA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3e23999882c849314f3347b154d2e8e5
PDF Text
Text
AGAINST SOCIALISM.
BY
HUMANITA8.”
Author of “ Is God the First Cause? ”, “ Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed ”,
Thoughts on Heaven”, “Jacob the Wrestler”, “Mr. Bradlaugh and the Oaths
Question ”, “ How the British House of Commons treated Charles Bradlaugh, M.P.”,
“ Charles Bradlaugh and the Irish Nation ”, “ Socialism a Curse ”, “A Fish in Labor ;
or, Jonah and the Whale ”, “ God: Being also a Brief Statement of Arguments
Against Agnosticism”, etc.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63 FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 9.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
COMPANY,
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63
FLEET STREET, E.C.
r
�AGAINST SOCIALISM.
[The following remarks were originally written in the form of a
letter, which, however, I did not dispatch, coming to the conclusion
that it might be useful as a small pamphlet against Socialism. This
must be my plea for its brevity, and also for what may be deemed its
somewhat fragmentary character.]
Since writing my pamphlet against Socialism1 (now nearly
six years ago), which partook of the nature of a reply
to Dr. E. B. Aveling, my mind has, if anything, been
strengthened in the belief that State Socialism would
really be a curse rather than a blessing.
I think the larger half of those who adopt Socialism
do. so. without examining it, and also without carefully
weighing the theories put forward by leading Socialists.
I do not doubt for a moment that these theories are
sincerely and honorably held by their principal exponents.
I am confident such is the case in some instances. But I
do not think the subject is sufficiently weighed and understood by the majority of those who throw up their caps in
favor of it. The possibility of My Lord having, in some
dim and indescribable manner, to share his riches with
the ordinary hard-working — and often out-of-work —
journeyman, is doubtless a very taking bait to dangle
before the latter. I am here leaving out of the question
the very large leaven of those who are not hard-working,
but who hope to profit by any change, quite regardless as
to whether it be for the better of for the worse.
But if the ordinary working man, who is tickled by this
delusion, looks below the surface he will see that it would
not only not work, but that it is simply madness to dream
Cq1 <la®oc^a^sm a f-'urse-”
Price 3d.
Freethought Publishing
�4
AGAINST SOCIALISM.
of its ever coming about. He will find that his salvation
lies in the direction of Co-operation, rather than in that of
confiscation. For my own part, I believe that, although
the movement may do some harm—perhaps much harm—
its ultimate and complete adoption is simply an impossi
bility.
State Socialism means State serfdom, and State espionage
carried into every act and effort of one’s life. It means
the complete annihilation of each individual’s individuality ;
and, if enacted to-morrow, would by sheer necessity be
ignored the day after. I believe the advocates themselves
would, if successful, find the condition of affairs they had
brought about so intolerable as to compel them to be
amongst the first to undo their own work. Some of them,
at least, could not by their very nature sink themselves to
the necessary State level which would be demanded by
what they themselves had set up. Some few there might
be willing to sink themselves for what they thought to be
the general good; but it is expecting too much of human
nature to suppose that the bulk of the brightest, best, and
fittest would submerge themselves in the slough of medio
crity and inferiority at the bidding of a State (by which I
mean the executive for the time being) composed of those
who, despite the Socialistic government regulations, had,
by their individuality, come to the top.
Practically, I think Socialists hold, in common with
most of us, that it is the duty of the State to guarantee each
individual in the free and safe enjoyment of what he may,
by his superior industry, thrift, and intelligence, earn. This
at least is what they profess to desire; and it is possible
that the main difference between us consists in the method
adopted to attain that end. Whilst giving them credit for
sincerity, I hold that Socialism would not only not do this,
but would actually make its being done impossible. It
would squeeze, or try to squeeze, all down to a kind of
worse than State mediocrity, and thus rob each of his
individual merits. If it did not do this, but allowed each
to possess what he individually earned or produced, there
is an end of Socialism, because it would then be allowing
individual accumulation of capital, which it is its particular
mission to destroy.
It would seem to me that the very essence of Socialism
is that an individual (or even a voluntary company formed
of individuals) must not possess what he earns either by
�AGAINST SOCIALISM.
5
brain, sinew, or actual moral worth, because one man will,
by the greater exercise of these, earn ten-fold what another
will. And this always strikes me as being strangely at
variance with the great Socialistic complaint, that the
workman does not receive what he is justly entitled to do.
I am bound to admit that in many cases he does not; but
will Socialism give it to him ? Will robbing the intelli
gent, the industrious, and the better man, by levelling
him down to the standard of the worser, give it him?
And bear in mind that if you reduced the profits of the
employer to the level of the average wage of the workmen,
you would still have the question of extra merit, and con
sequent extra worth, of the men themselves to deal with ;
so that robbing the employer of the fruits of the position
to which he had possibly slaved and toiled would not settle
the injustice as between the workmen. The fact would
still remain that all men are not equal : they are not
equally wise, industrious, virtuous; nor are they equally
fit in any respect whatever. Equality before the law is
good, but it does not mean that all are equal in worth,
either intellectually, morally, or even commercially, and
no government stamp can make them so. Keeping this
in mind, I do not see how robbing one man to balance
another can be just or reasonable, whether that man be
a duke, capitalist, government official, working man, or
man in any other position.
If Socialism will not permit me to possess the fruits of
my brain, and enterprise; of my sobriety, and greater
application, where is the freedom—not to mention the
right ? [I would here remark that I am not forgetting
the duty of the individual to the State, and to the general
well-being.] But if, on the other hand, Socialism will
allow me such possession, which means the possession of
individual property—and you cannot logically draw the
line between a trinket and a mansion—what becomes of
it ? You are admitting the very principle that your
Socialism is set up to kill; and bear in mind that whether
you admit the principle or not, it will live; and rightly
live. Nature herself will not allow even a government to
command : Thus much shalt thou earn, produce, or possess,
and no more ; or if thou producest more, thou shalt give
it up, and go back to the level of the less active and
deserving mass thou hast left behind. If a government
could do this, and so deprive the more energetic and better
�6
AGAINST SOCIALISM.
man of the fruits of his greater energy—and with them
.the incentive to that energy—it would at the same time be
encouraging the mass to depend not upon their own efforts,
but upon the efforts of others ; thus inducing and helping
all—as per Socialistic law—to be indolent rather than
otherwise.
“ Open your mouth and shut your eyes, and see what the
State will send you ”, is not a wise doctrine to preach.
The large heap of money shared all round, with Jack’s
notion of sharing it over again as occasion may require, is
however, although the very backbone of Socialism, too
absurd for any practical purpose, or for serious considera
tion. Of course it is held that Socialism does not mean
anything of the sort: but when explained (?) this is found
to be what is really meant; because the moment you dis
card it, you are landed in individual accumulation.
I am aware that Socialism is held to be not yet thoroughly
defined: but 1 believe it to be undefinable ; and that the
more you endeavor to define it, the more unworkable you
find it. Imagine for instance the arts and sciences being
worked upon a kind of huge out-door relief system, the
products not belonging to the producers, but to the State I
Do you suppose you could by process of law—I am not
asking ought you to do so—but could you make the great
painter, inventor, sculptor, musician, engineer, physician,
etc., etc., satisfied with the same remuneration as you
would give to the railway porter, or the stable man ?
Indeed, the intrigue, the red-tapeism, the discontent and
rebellion which would be certain to form part of the ques
tion as to which should become the stable boy, and which
the engineer or philosopher, is something ludicrous to
picture. The phrenologist might possibly be brought into
requisition with some advantage; but not all the State
paid (?) phrenologists, nor Government Boards that ever
existed, or will exist, could make the great of brain, and
the great of power, (in every calling)—mostly begot of
perseverance and application—satisfied to be placed upon
a par with the mass. The thing is simply a joke. The
idea of finding sufficient reward—plus a “ leather medal ”
—in the knowledge of having served mankind, shorn of all
other and more substantial considerations, is nothing better
than twaddle, and practically all, even including Socialists
themselves, proclaim it to be so.
�AGAINST SOCIALISM.
7
But if you do propose to remunerate the great and
meritorious in something like proportion to their work, or
services rendered to the State; might they spend or put
such remuneration to further use, with an eye to immediate
comfort, or to — perchance — future interest 2 Or would
they be compelled to simply sit upon it, not even daring
to hatch it into 2^ per cents. ? Perhaps a method of
rewarding extra merit might be found in a system of
awarding dummy medals—or, if really valuable, accom
panied by criminal consequences in case of the recipient
converting them into money or other valuables.
For my own part I regard Socialism as the cry of the
poorer and less able—and, alas ! larger—half of humanity
—and I might go so far as to say : the worse half—
against its own poverty and wretchedness. And it is
this wretchedness, together with the hope of being able
to remedy it, which constitutes the strength of the Social
istic craze, and commands the sympathy and support of
many to whom the merits of the scheme, as a means to an
end, would certainly fail to appeal.
Let us by all means do what in us lies : let us legislate
with a view to reducing poverty and its consequent suffer
ings ; but let us not do it at the expense of the liberty and
the commonest rights of the people themselves.
What we want is reform, not serfdom. We want an
extension of individual liberty ; greater freedom of contract
in the matter of the sale and transfer of land ; fewer
restrictions upon trade, commerce, markets, etc.; the re
adjustment of financial matters, with a view to a more
equitable mode of taxation. These and many other changes
calculated to directly benefit the working man, we un
doubtedly require ; but we do not require a retrograde
movement into primitive (now called scientific) Socialism.
The science which shall thin some down and thicken
others up to some kind of State regulation standard,
making all good boys and girls, each being satisfied with
the government dole, and also satisfied with that station
and calling in life which it pleaseth—not God in this
instance, but the State—to place them, is yet to be dis
covered. The ism, whether Socialistic or other, would
have to be very scientific indeed to prevent the eagle from
soaring and the race-horse from outstripping the ass. And
it would be very mad to attempt to legislate in that
direction.
�8
AGAINST SOCIALISM.
But Socialism, whilst endeavoring to bring some down,
would also necessarily have to prevent others from rising.
It is in principle quite as adverse to a small capital as to a
large one. The ability to produce wealth would be of no
use; the main incentive to thrift and effort would be
removed. Under the Socialistic regime individual possession
of valuables of any kind whatever would be impossible.
This is denied, because the idea is too ridiculous on the
face it for standing-room; but the denial is simply a
repudiation of the thing in behalf of which it is made.
If Socialism should ever reign, our very language would
have to be reconstructed: I, mine, and me, with all that
belongs to them and is understood by then^ would have
to be erased from our grammars as well as from our
institutions; and every explanation offered by Socialists
against this view is, though not so intended, essentially
an argument against the feasibility of Socialism.
Perhaps one of the worst features of Socialism is, that
it would create a gigantic swarm of State officials, whose
duty it would be to “inspect”, i.e, pry into the private
business of every individual in the State, to such an extent
as would be insufferable to any people claiming, in the
smallest sense of the word, to be free. Nay, I doubt if
there could be, such a thing as private business ; it would
all have to be public, with a Government detective in
every shop, house, or factory. It would be State vassalage,
pure and simple.
It might, I think, be safely prophesied that should we
ever “ evolve ” into State Socialism, we should speedily
evolve out of it again. Therein lies some consolation.
And, as I have remarked, some of the leading Socialist
luminaries would be the first to attract and draw the
smaller fry into the outward course. These leaders are in
some notable instances, and for this they deserve honor,
the very personification of self-help, self-assertion, and
self-reliance. It is true their great individuality is in
direct opposition to the principle of Socialism, and is so
far inconsistent with their creed ; but should that creed
ever be generally and practically adopted, it would at
once either kill or convert them into anti-Socialists.
�
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
Against socialism, by "Humanitas"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ball, William Platt [1844-1917]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Shows signs of having been detached from bound volume. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N054
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Against socialism, by "Humanitas"), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><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
NSS
Socialism