And we should fail in an accurate presentation of our subject if we did not emphasise the fact that the present position of labour is the result of a vast effort of practical and constructive work. In all departments labour had to start from the very beginning not many years ago. The socialist parties with their programmes represent a strenuous and painful process of thought and organisation. Through the trade unions the ill-informed, untrained, suspicious, and turbulent democracy of labour has been drilled into habits of common action. How much of enthusiasm and high principle, of persevering toil and patient attention to detail has been put into the co-operative movement!
There are now most significant symptoms that all the diverse forms of working-class activity are being consolidated into one great movement. We have seen how in Belgium trade unions and co-operative societies work in harmony with the socialist party. So they also do in Denmark. In Italy the three classic forms of labour activity, trade unionism, co-operation, and the Friendly Society, have come to an understanding which is inspired by socialist aims. Generally we may say that the tendency in all countries is for organised labour to become socialistic.
In nearly all countries the interests of the rural workers have been by socialists neglected or sacrificed for the industrial workers. This is particularly observable in agrarian questions and questions of tariff. They have not seen that at least temporary legislation has been required to save the rural workers from ruin by the exceptional competition of cheap farm products from America. Generally they have considered the interests of the workers as consumers rather than as producers. The Socialist Revolutionary Party in Russia have, however, seriously faced the agrarian problem in their programme in language of carefully calculated vagueness. Proceeding from the basis of the old communal ownership, they advocate the socialisation of all land under an administration of popular self-government, central and local. ‘The use of the land will be based on labour and the principle of equality, that is to say, it will guarantee the satisfaction of the needs of the producer, working himself individually or in society.’ Rent will be used for collective needs. The subsoil will belong to the State. In Finland, which is the most socialistic country of Europe, the Social Democratic Party has also specially dealt with the agrarian question.
While it has hitherto been the too general tendency of socialists to distrust and oppose the existing system of government and administration, they are now in point of fact taking a larger part in the work of state and commune. Such work, like all other practical work, will serve as a wholesome discipline for parties whose energies have been too much expended and wasted in sterile opposition and unprofitable criticism. And it may lead them to see that the antagonism of other parties may be due to honest ignorance or well-justified doubt. Even in Germany Bebel admits that so much intercourse in the Reichstag and its committees between Social Democrats and the other parties has led to a friendlier feeling among them. But the main point that we wish to bring out here is that organised and progressive labour in all countries and in all its departments, trade unions, co-operative societies, etc., is being more and more inspired by socialistic aims, and tends more and more to form a solid and organic movement on practical lines. How far the movement may in the future conform or attain to the collectivist type remains to be seen.
We must particularly emphasise the fact that nothing adverse to a reasonable patriotism, to religion, marriage, or the family, is now found in the programmes of parties or in the resolutions of congresses. The International and the Socialist Parties clearly recognise that their task is the emancipation of labour, and that it is of an economic and political nature. Those who mix up this great problem with questions of religion and marriage do so on their own responsibility. They have no right to speak on behalf of socialism, and have no influence or authority beyond what they may personally possess.
In our review we have had much to say of the possibilities of revolution. To all who shrink from sudden change the experience of the Labour Party in Australia should be reassuring. The Labour Party of the Commonwealth attained to power in 1904 and again in 1908. But the Party when in power can do very little. It is only one of three or four parties. When in power it must depend on outside support. Thus do the desires and ideals of men find their limitations in human nature and in our environment. What men have most to fear as the greatest danger, particularly in English-speaking lands, is not sudden change, but the indifference and neglect which make change slow and inadequate. The efforts of labour to raise itself deserve our entire sympathy and our most careful study.
Force devoid of counsel, whether it be of the reaction or of the revolution, will only result in increase of evil. Evil in itself each tends to aggravate and perpetuate the other. We can avert the baneful consequences of both only by pursuing with temperate energy the course of well-considered and beneficent change. To guide the vast and ever-growing labour movement of the world into paths which shall be wise, righteous, peaceful, and happy, this is the task and, we hope, will be the achievement of the twentieth century. Happy the men who have the good-will, sympathy, and insight to make a worthy contribution to this great work!
| [1] | See p. 316. |
| [2] | See Inquiry into Socialism, 3rd ed. p. 96. |