Page images
PDF
EPUB

Art. 15.-UTOPIAS UNLIMITED.

1. Roads to Freedom. By Bertrand Russell. Allen &

Unwin, 1918.

2. Labour in the Commonwealth.

Headley, 1918.

By G. D. H. Cole.

3. Democracy at the Cross-Roads. By M. D. Petre. Fisher Unwin, 1918.

4. The Human Needs of Labour. By B. Seebohm Rowntree. Nelson, 1918.

5. Poverty and Waste. By Hartley Withers. Murray,

1917.

6. Democracy at the Crossways. By F. J. C. Hearnshaw. Macmillan, 1918.

7. Principles of Social Reconstruction.

Russell. Allen & Unwin, 1916.

By Bertrand

8. Freedom. By Gilbert Cannan. Headley, 1918.

MR CHESTERTON once remarked, in his forcible-facetious way, that, if the social revolution ever did come, the streets would run red with the blood of philanthropists. But if this be the doom awaiting the philanthropists, what horrible fate is in store for the theorists? Remembering Carlyle's dramatic description of what happened to the French aristocrats who sneered at the theorists of the Contrat Social,' one hesitates to mock at even the maddest-brained idéologue of the middle-classes who, with a comfortable private income or a safe berth in the Civil Service, may be mapping out just now a romantic Elysium for 'Labour.' The strangest things may occur in connexion with that incalculable element, the 'soul of man'; and it would be mortifying, to say the least, after having ridiculed one of these literary Utopias, to find that our skin was required of us to bind the second edition of it.' But the theorists are ultra-respectable nowadays (some are even aristocrats themselves); and we have a pretty firm conviction that the critic might fall foul of any of them without being gibbeted by the British 'working man' who, generally speaking, has never heard of them or their theories. Almsgiving may prove to be not too certain a passport to the favour of our coming democracy, but it is scarcely likely that mere 'intellectualism' will be preferred before it. Whatever

be the root-cause of the present industrial upheavals, the theorists of the latest 'Social Contracts' seem to exercise little real influence outside their own particular 'schools.' They dwell in a world apart from the great mass of labouring men; and it would scarcely be too much to say that the barrier shutting off the rich from the poor is not more actual and distinct than that dividing the workers' from those who only write about work.

The study of a sheaf of literature (a selection from which heads this article), treating of labour ideals and plans for economic readjustment, goes far to confirm this view. The doctrinaires-socialist, capitalist and meliorist alike-all suggest plausible solutions of the interacting problems of wealth and wages. But with very few exceptions these theorists-especially the more 'intellectual' type-can claim but a small share in the shaping of working-class demands; and one might with a fair degree of certainty hazard the prediction that if the social revolution ever did come it would not be a 'book' revolution.

Not that, as has been said, there is any lack of material sent into the libraries lately to start a score of revolutionary (and largely contradictory) 'movements.' Here, for instance, is Mr Bertrand Russell, in his 'Roads to Freedom,' concerning himself overmuch with what he conceives to be the only two alternative routes to the Promised Land, viz., Socialism and Anarchist-Communism. This book, though it contains many fine philosophical reflections, strikes one as being, in the main, a work of supererogation. As regards a substantial part of it, it might have been written twenty years ago. It is too sketchy and perfunctory for its theme (the author admits that it was finished off in a hurry, just before he went to prison), and gives the impression, here and there, of being a less eloquent summary of some of the ideas enunciated in his Principles of Social Reconstruction "-a vastly better book, to which we shall refer again later on.

In Roads to Freedom' Mr Russell deals principally with the conflict between the Collectivist and the Communist ideals, and the bearings of each on the question of labour control. Into which scale should we throw our weight? Should we aim at the setting-up of a

paramount Collectivist authority-the 'State' of the Marxian Socialist-with supreme power to produce, distribute and exchange; or should we aim at the gradual devolution of initiative and responsibility from the State to the group and from the group to the individual? The whole problem centres in the first place (and perhaps in the last) round industry and the distribution of wealth. Mr Russell, of course, jettisons the existing system of production for profit, and then addresses himself to an enquiry into the relative claims of the Socialist and the Syndicalist to look after the business of the social organism. In his attitude to this pair Mr Russell reminds us somewhat of Launcelot Gobbo in torment between the fiend and his conscience. Socialism,' says Mr Russell, you counsel well; Syndicalism, you counsel well.' He considers both of them, notes their attractions and defects, and decides for a combination of both.

'Marxian Socialism would, I fear, give too much power to the State; while Syndicalism, which aims at the abolition of the State, would, I believe, find itself forced to re-construct a central authority in order to put an end to the rivalries of different groups of producers. The best practical system to my mind is Guild Socialism, which concedes what is valid, both in the claims of the State Socialists and in the Syndicalists' fear of the State, by adopting a system of federalism among trades for reasons similar to those which have recommended federalism among nations.'

In the Guild Socialist idea the State and society are two separable spheres. The Guilds will attend to the interests of the citizens as producers, and the State will guard their rights as consumers. A Guilds Congress would be co-equal with Parliament as a constitutional governing authority, having full power over all the processes of production; while the State would act as overseer of the safety of the realm and the welfare of the community as a whole. The nation would thus be divided up into two neat sections, any question of clashing interests being thrashed out in the joint Parliament of the State and the Guilds. It is evident that Mr Russell has an uneasy sense that it might be as difficult to reconcile the rights of producers and consumers under this system as it is now; and that, in any case, it would not be all honey in the

Guild Socialist paradise, for he hastens to assure us early in the book that 'pure anarchism' is his own 'ultimate ideal.' Meditating over his mathematics and his metaphysics, and feeling himself to be capable of full 'self-determination,' as well as at peace with all mankind, he has no qualms about outlining for us the features of his Communist society, in which every man will do practically what he likes, and where, so far as we can discern, there is no semblance of a 'central authority' to compel him to do anything at all. Necessaries' would be 'free' to everybody,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'but whatever went beyond necessaries should only be given to those who were willing to work-not, as is usual at present, only to those in work at any moment, but also to those who when they happened not to be working were idle through no fault of their own. The comparatively small number of men with an invincible horror of work-the sort of men who now become tramps-might lead a harmless, necessary existence without any grave danger of their becoming sufficiently numerous to be a serious burden upon the more industrious.'

There would probably be no tramps,' however, in Mr Russell's Anarchist arcadia-or they would be called 'artists. There is a special section for artists,' who, in return for doing nothing but enjoy themselves (there is no compulsion even to produce any 'art'), would receive a small honorarium from the community.

'Under this plan every man could live without work. There would be what might be called a "vagabond's wage," sufficient for existence but not for luxury. The artist who preferred to have his whole time for art and enjoyment might live on the "vagabond's wage," travelling on foot when the humour seized him to see foreign countries, enjoying the air and the sun, as free as the birds, and perhaps scarcely less happy. Such men would bring colour and diversity into the life of the community. . . . They would keep alive a muchneeded element of light-heartedness which our sober serious civilisation tends to kill.'

The only necessary comment on which, for the moment, is that, whatever this Utopia might lack, it would not be short of artists.'

6

All this part of Mr Russell's book can be enjoyed as a Vol. 231.-No. 459.

2 L

romance, written by a particularly earnest romancer. But, like all the Utopians, Mr Russell is rather reticent about the ways and means of making it come true. He has no mind for working out the practical details of the 'transitional' period. Our society is bad, so he conceives a better one (anybody could do this), and forthwith transports us thither with the celerity of an Arabian Night's magician. It is characteristic, too, of this type of theorist that, although they nearly always ignore the real difficulties of conveying us from the bad society into the good one, they are fussily circumstantial over some of the minor problems that might crop up in the community of their dreams. Reading Mr Russell's academic discussion of what might happen to literature under an Anarchist régime, which would settle what books were to be printed and who would print them, together with his note on the possible remuneration of opera singers, one recalls the minute considerations that were wont to be given to Utopian wall-paper and door-knockers in the Socialist fantasies of the 'nineties.

Now and then Mr Russell betrays a knowledge of human nature, as when he remarks (mildly enough) that 'I fear it cannot be said that... bad impulses are wholly due to a bad social system'; and he even goes so far in one place as to cast a doubt on his own bright imaginings by confessing that, though his arguments in favour of Communism are 'sufficient to make it seem possible that the plan might succeed,' they are 'not sufficient to make it so probable that it would be wise to try it.' All the same, his projected commonwealth is offered to us with the seriousness of a bill in Parliament. In fact, despite the attention which Mr Russell gives to the opposing theories of Marx and Bakunin (he reviews 'Das Kapital' almost as though it was published yesterday), and some faithful criticism which he deals out to the wild proposals of the Syndicalists, Roads to Freedom' has an air of presenting us with a social scheme already well under way, and only awaiting the pilotage of experts. His final word, that before we can have freedom we must have goodwill, but slightly modifies this impression.

Needless to say, Mr Cole also assumes the success of his Guild Socialist ideal. Labour in the Commonwealth' is the latest of a series of works by this tenacious

« PreviousContinue »