Socialism As It Is Part 2

"(1) because its existence is not due to the owner;

"(2) because it is limited in quant.i.ty;

"(3) because it owes nothing of its value to anything the owner does or spends;

"(4) because it is absolutely necessary for existence and production."[25]

Lord Rosebery says, justly, that all these propositions except the last apply to many other forms of property than land, as, for instance, to government bonds, and that it certainly would be Socialism to attempt to confiscate these by taxation.

Lord Rosebery's task would have become even easier later, when Mr. Lloyd George enlarged his attack on the landlords definitely into an attack against the idle upper cla.s.ses, who with their dependents he reckoned at two million persons. He accused this cla.s.s of const.i.tuting an intolerable burden on the community, said that its existence was the symptom of the disease of society, and that only bold remedies could help. The whole cla.s.s of inactive capitalists he viewed as a load both on the non-capitalist, wage-earning, salaried and professional cla.s.ses, and on the active capitalists. Mr. Lloyd George argues with his capitalist supporters that capitalism will be all the stronger when freed from its parasites. But Lord Rosebery could answer that the active could no more be distinguished from the pa.s.sive capitalists than landowners from bondholders.

An article in the world's leading Socialist newspaper, _Vorwaerts_, of Berlin, shows that many Socialists even regarded these speeches as revolutionary:--

"The Radical wing of the British Liberals," it said, "is leading the attack with ideal recklessness and l.u.s.t of battle. It is conducting the agitation in language which in Germany is customarily used only by a 'red revolutionist.' If the German Junker (landlord conservative) were to read these speeches, he would swear that they were delivered by the Social Democrats of the reddest dye, so ferociously do they contrast between the rich and the poor. They appeal to the pa.s.sion of the people; they exploit social distinctions in the manner best calculated to fire popular anger against the Lords.

"In the heart of battle the Liberals are employing language which at other times they would have considered twice. Their words will some day be a.s.suredly turned against them, when more than the mere Budget or the existence of the Lords is at stake. When the Liberals, allied with the conservative enemy of to-day, are fighting the working cla.s.ses, the Socialists will recall this language as proof that the Liberals themselves recognize the injustice of the existing order.

"Mr. Lloyd George made such a speech at Newcastle that the seeds he is planting may first bring forth Liberal fruit, but there can be no doubt that Socialism will eventually reap the harvest. His arguments must arouse the workingmen, and when they have accustomed themselves to look at things from this standpoint it is certain that once standing before the safes of the industrial capitalists they will never close their eyes."

It is perhaps true that the Socialists will at some future day reap the harvest from Mr. Lloyd George's and Mr. Churchill's campaigns, though a careful a.n.a.lysis of the expressions of these statesmen will show that they have said nothing and done nothing in contradiction to their State-capitalistic or "State Socialist" standpoint.

There is no doubt that the principle of the new taxes and the new expenditure these statesmen are introducing is radical, and that it marks a great stride towards a collectivist form of capitalism. Let us a.s.sume that development continues along the lines of their present policies. In a very few years the increased expenditure on social reform will be greater than the increased expenditure on army and navy, and the increase of direct and graduated taxes that fall on the upper cla.s.ses will be greater than that of the indirect taxes that fall on the ma.s.ses.

We will a.s.sume even that military expenditure and indirect taxes on articles the working people consume will begin some day to decrease, while graduated taxes directed against the very wealthy and social reform expenditures rise until they quite overshadow them. There is every reason to believe that the social reformers of the British and other governments hope for such an outcome and expect it. This would be in no way inconsistent with their policy of subordinating everything, to use one of their expressions, to "that trade and commerce which const.i.tutes the source of our wealth."

For the collectivist expenditures, intended to increase the national product through governmental enterprises for the promotion of industry, and for raising the industrial efficiency of the workers, would be introduced gradually, and would soon be accompanied by results which would show that they paid financially. And finally, even if railways and monopolies were nationalized and their profits as well as _all_ the future rise in land value went to the State to be used for these purposes, as Mr. Churchill hopes, and even if a method could be found by which a large part of the income of the idle rich would be confiscated without touching the active capital of the merchant and manufacturer, the position of the latter cla.s.ses, through this policy, might become still more superior relatively to that of the ma.s.ses than it is at present. The industrial capitalists might even control a larger share of the national income and exercise a still more powerful influence over the State than they do to-day.

The cla.s.ses that the more or less collectivist budgets of 1910 and 1911 actually do favor, those whose economic and political power they actually do increase, are the small and middle-sized capitalists and even the larger capitalists other than landlords and monopolists. The great ma.s.s of income taxpayers, business men, farmers, and the professional cla.s.ses with incomes from about 200 to 3000 ($1000 to $15,000) are given every encouragement, while those with somewhat larger incomes are only slightly discriminated against on the surface, in the incidence of the taxes, and not at all when we inquire into the ways in which the taxes are being expended. Certainly nothing is being done that will "appreciably affect the status or style of living of any cla.s.s in the United Kingdom," or that will check materially the enormous rise of this "upper middle" cla.s.s both in wealth and numbers--for the income tax payers have doubled their income in a little more than a decade, until it has reached the total of more than a billion pounds a year. And surely no tendency could be more diametrically opposed to a Socialism whose purpose it is to improve the _relative_ position of the "lower middle" and working cla.s.ses.

While the new reform programs of the various parties are in general agreement in all countries, in that they are all collectivist, and favor as a rule the same social cla.s.ses, there is much controversy as to names, whether they shall be called Socialistic or merely radical or progressive. The question is really immaterial.

"Capital, divested of its perversions, would be natural Socialism,"

says one of Henry George's most prominent disciples.[26] Whether the proposed reforming is done with a purified and strengthened capitalism in view, or in the name of "natural Socialism" or "State Socialism," the program itself is in every practical aspect the same.

If a contrast formerly appeared to exist between "Individualist" and "State Socialist" reformers, it was never more than a contrast in theory, quickly dispelled when the time for action arrived. The individualist radical would have the State do as little as possible, but still is compelled to resort to an increase of its powers at every turn; the "State Socialist" would have the State do as much as practicable, but would still retain State action within the rigid limits imposed by the need of gaining capitalist support and the desire for immediate political success. In economic policy the Individualist is for checking the excess of monopoly and special privilege in order to allow "equal opportunity" or a free development to whatever compet.i.tion or "natural Capitalism" remains, while the "State Socialist" is more concerned with protecting and promoting the natural checking of the excesses of compet.i.tive capitalism and private property that comes with "natural monopoly" and its regulation by government. The "State Socialist,"

however critical he is towards compet.i.tion, recognizes that the first practical possibility of putting an end to its excesses comes when monopoly is already established, and when it is relatively easy for the State to step in to nationalize or munic.i.p.alize; the Individualist reformer who wishes to preserve compet.i.tion where practicable, at the same time recognizes that it is impossible to do so where monopolies have become firmly rooted in certain industries, and he also at this point proposes nationalization, munic.i.p.alization, or thoroughgoing governmental control.

Henry George himself recognizes that "State Socialism," which he called simply "Socialism," and the "natural Capitalism" he advocated, far from being contradictory, were complementary and interdependent. Mr. Louis Post says:--

"Even in the economic chapters of 'Progress and Poverty' its author saw the possibility of society's approaching the 'ideal of Jeffersonian Democracy, the promised land of Herbert Spencer, the abolition of government. But of government only as a directing and repressive power.' At the same time and in the same degree of approach, he regarded it as possible for society also to realize the dream of Socialism."[27]

The following pa.s.sage leaves no doubt that Mr. Post is correct, and at the same time shows in the clearest way how the two policies of reform were interwoven in Henry George's mind:--

"Government could take up itself the transmission of messages by telegraph, as well as by mail, of building and operating railroads, as well as of the opening and maintaining common roads. With the present functions so simplified and reduced, functions such as these could be a.s.sumed without danger or strain, and would be under the supervision of public attention, which is now distracted. There would be a great and increasing surplus revenue from the taxation of land values for material progress, which would go on with great accelerated rapidity, would tend constantly to increase rent. This revenue arising from the common property would be applied to the common benefit, as were the revenues of Sparta. We might not establish public tables--they would be unnecessary, but we could establish public baths, museums, libraries, gardens, lecture rooms, music and dancing halls, theaters, universities, technical schools, shooting galleries, playgrounds, gymnasiums, etc. Heat, light, and motive power, as well as water, might be conducted through our streets at public expense; our roads be lined with fruit trees; discoveries and inventors rewarded, scientific investigation supported; in a thousand ways the public revenues made to foster efforts for the public benefit. _We should reach the ideal of the Socialist_, but not through government repression. _Government would change its character, and would become the administration of a great cooperative society. It would become merely the agency by which the common property was administered for the common benefit_." (Italics mine.)[28]

But the "State Socialist" and the Individualist reformer, who are often combined in one person, as in the case of Henry George, differ sharply from Socialists of the Socialist movement in aiming at a society, which, however widely government action is to be extended, is after all to remain a society of small capitalists.

Professor Edward A. Ross very aptly sums up the reformer's objections to the anti-capitalist Socialists. Capitalism must be "divested of its perversions," the privately owned monopolies and their political machines, primarily for the purpose of strengthening it _against_ Socialism. "Individualism should make haste to clean the hull of the old s.h.i.+p for the coming great battle with the opponents of private capital...."[29] The reformers, as a rule, like Professor Ross, consciously stand for a new form of private capitalism, to be built up with the aid of the State. This is the avowed att.i.tude of the larger part of the "progressives," "radicals," and "insurgents" of the day.

The new reform programs, however radical, are aimed at regenerating capitalism. The most radical of all, that of the single taxers, who plan not only that the state shall be the sole landlord, but that the railways and the mines shall be nationalized and other public utilities munic.i.p.alized, do not deny that they want to put a new life into private capitalism, and to stimulate commercial compet.i.tion in the remaining fields of industry. Mr. Frederick C. Howe, for instance, predicts a revival of capitalistic enterprise, after these measures are enacted, and even looks forward to the indefinite continuation of the struggle between capital and labor.[30]

FOOTNOTES:

[9] The _Socialist Review_ (London), April, 1909.

[10] The _New Age_ (London), Nov. 4, 1909.

[11] Edward Bernstein, "Evolutionary Socialism," p. 154.

[12] Winston Churchill, "Liberalism and the Social Problem," p. 345.

[13] H. G. Wells, "New Worlds for Old," p. 185.

[14] Winston Churchill, _op. cit._, p. 80.

[15] Winston Churchill, _op. cit._, pp. 326, 327.

[16] Winston Churchill, _op. cit._, pp. 326.

[17] Winston Churchill, _op. cit._, p. 396.

[18] Winston Churchill, _op. cit._, p. 399.

[19] Winston Churchill, _op. cit._, p. 336.

[20] Winston Churchill, _op. cit._, p. 339.

[21] Lloyd George, "Better Times," p. 163.

[22] Lloyd George, _op. cit._, pp. 94-101.

[23] Lloyd George, _op. cit._, p. 58.

[24] Lloyd George, _op. cit._, p. 174.

[25] Lord Rosebery's Speech at Glasgow, Sept. 10, 1909.

[26] Louis F. Post, "Social Service," p. 341.

[27] _The Public_ (Chicago), Nov. 4, 1910.

[28] Henry George, "Progress and Poverty," Book IV, p. 454.