A history of socialism

by Thomas Kirkup

6. But the greatest force in the social evolution of the present time consists of the human beings who are most directly interested in it—the modern democracy. This democracy is marked by a combination of characteristics which are new to history. It is being educated and enlightened in the school and by the cheap press; it is being drilled and organised in large factories, in the national armies, by vast popular demonstrations, in the gigantic electoral struggles of the time. Thus it is becoming conscious of its enormous power, and able to make use of it. It is becoming conscious also of its unsatisfactory social and economic position. The democracy which is growing to be the master-force of the civilised world is still for the most part economically a proletariat dependent on precarious wage-labour. While they are resolved to proceed with the consummation of the political change which is involved in the establishment of democracy, their goal is an economic transformation. But the inevitable process of concentration of industrial operations already referred to is entirely against the continuance or restoration of the small producer, whether workman or peasant proprietor. Such efforts of continuance or restoration are reactionary: they are economically unsound and must fail. The economic transformation must be sought in the application of the principle of association to the large industry.

7. We are thus brought to the conclusion that the competitive system, with precarious wage-labour as the lot of the vast majority of the people, is not a suitable and adequate form for the social development of the future. The competitive system has led to great strikes, which have been the cause of widespread misery, almost as grievous as the suffering endured during the worst campaigns under the old style of warfare. It has led to great commercial and industrial crises, which have scattered over the civilised world panic and ruin, followed by long-continued stagnation and depression. Thus anarchy, waste, and starvation have been its too frequent attendants, while the normal position of the workmen under it has been precarious and unworthy of free, enlightened men. England has had less reason than most countries to regret the prevalence of competition, for her industrial supremacy has generally left her victor in the struggle, and she has hitherto looked forward to widening markets as the solution of her economic troubles. But the rapid development of Germany and America may teach us that our industrial position is not so secure against assault as it used to be, and that we may in future suffer the bitter experience of the vanquished, which we have so long inflicted on others. And we may thus learn that reason and law should control industry and commerce as well as other spheres of human activity.

In America the development of the trust system is only another proof of the inadequacy of the competitive system. The supporters of the trusts maintain with very good show of reason that unregulated competition is harmful and may be ruinous to all concerned, and that they can maintain fair prices, pay fair wages, and secure a fair return to capital only by mutual arrangement among the producers. But the system obviously involves the serious objection, that the great industrial chiefs who organise and direct the trusts are thereby constituted supreme judges of their own interests and of the economic interests of the whole American people; that such combinations form a huge monopoly in so many of the leading articles of consumption, and establish an economic, social, and political power which may be a danger to American society. In short, we are driven to the result that while competition has been hurtful or ruinous to those engaged in it, the now prevailing system of regulation by capitalism in its own interests is a serious danger to the whole people. There is only one right way out of such a dilemma. A return to the competitive method is neither possible nor desirable. Monopoly is incompatible with freedom. The only course for peoples who desire to be free is to adopt some form of social ownership and control. This appears to be the lesson taught us by the development of the trusts.

8. The success of socialism greatly depends on the realisation of the two ideals, which may be regarded as the main pillars of the theory, when applied to practice. These are:—

(a) The normal working day: the general reduction of the working day to eight hours in the immediate future, and eventually to a shorter time. Such a desirable change would be better accomplished by voluntary agreement under the pressure of public opinion than by legislation; but it would be better made by legislation than by the cruel and clumsy method of strikes.

(b) A remuneration which will ensure a suitable standard of living; in other words, the means of a normal development. A reasonable standard of living, the competent means of a normal development have been determined by science and are no longer a matter of utopian guess-work. A fairly definite measure of fresh air, food, clothing, house comfort, recreation, and of satisfaction for the affections associated with wife and children constitute the rational needs of the average man. This is the moral and scientific basis of a rational system of distribution. The competitive wage determined by the iron law of wages of the older economists should be superseded by a remuneration embodying this principle. It is the Daily Bread of the Lord’s Prayer as definable by modern science.

The effect of the socialistic theory on these points is to remove two vital interests of man from the range of competition, and to place them on an ethical and scientific basis under social control. In so far as the working day of the employees of government, municipalities, co-operative societies, companies, and private firms approximates to eight hours, in so far as the wage paid by them secures to the workers a fit and reasonable standard of living, in so far is the socialistic ideal realised. Every one conversant with the history of the last sixty years knows how vast an improvement has been made in both respects.

We have thus reviewed the great social and economic movements of our time. How shall we interpret them? There are two main tendencies: one towards control of the economic processes by the people in state, municipality, and co-operative society; the other towards the consolidation of capitalism in trusts. In both we see plan, constructive and organising intelligence, the limitation of the anarchy of competition. But while the former makes for the public good, the latter is subservient to overgrown wealth.

The portentous growth of the trusts is indeed an object-lesson to the world. It proves that socialism is not an idle question; nor is it utopian or revolutionary merely. It is a question forced upon the present generation by the most gigantic industrial movement of recent times. All good citizens, all friends of righteousness and of progress, all inquirers worthy of the name, are under an imperative obligation to understand the true inwardness of the subject.

In considering the question of the practicability of a rational socialism, let us remember that it only proposes to accomplish on a wider scale and for a more enlightened time a task analogous to that undertaken by the guilds for the mediæval world. The guild was an organisation for the promotion of the common interests of the workers at a time when law and order were not sufficiently established by strong central governments, and when the present distinction between labourer and capitalist had not declared itself. It was a fairly equitable organisation of an industry which was local and associated with city life, and which worked with a very limited and undeveloped technique. Socialism proposes an equitable organisation of industry for the modern world with its enormous mechanical development and large industry, under a democracy guided by science and professing allegiance to the highest moral ideals.