THE COMMON SENSE OF COMMUNISM.
JUDGING by the many letters which we receivie, 'we oollect that the newly-revived subject of Communism ondiSions unabated in- terest among numbers who have hitherto treetr'fittle familiar with it; and we observe that the discussion of the tenets embraced under that general head is approached with a temper inore-suited to pro- mote a sound knowledge of political economy. We pass by cer- tain smart party writers, who expend their cleverness in idle taunts at the S'peetator for venturing to notice without disrespect a doctrine upheld by the assent of vast numbers. Political heresies are not to be put down by easily made-up nicknames. On the other hand, we would fain encourage those friendly readers who entertain a truly maternal alarm at seeing us handle so dangerous a doctrine, as if they thought that, like a gun, it would go off in our hands, blowing away the whole fabric of society with "the plant" in our publishing-office. Even if we were to advotate Communism, which We have not done, our good friends May rein assured that it would not be adopted on the spot by the whole world. What We have advocated is fair play, and the sort of rational discussion that really makes some progress towards the settlement of a ques- tion; which is to be effected, not by bandying nicknames, but, by
using plain terms. ,
What first drew our attention to the subject was a vague and 'indiscriminate use of the word "Communism," which speakers and writers flung about, heedless of its meaning or applicability. Does it, we asked, settle any question to dub your opponent's method " Communism " ? do those who use the term know what- they are talking about ? if they do, are they award that Corn- ihunitfe doctrineinare-eiftertained bi.large numbers in the most I civilized countries of Enrope, so that it is both indecorous and un- safe to pass it over With disparaging slights ? Nor has our re- proof heen without effect ; for even the stanch champion of the felitiCal economy of the'btioks, out correspondent " W. S.," speaks ill what We Cannot but consider an improved tone. Not that he is yet in the right course, or likely to be so until he perceives the- true relation between Political- Economy and Communism. " The two systems," he asserts, " are' antagonistic "; which is a double mistake of the most serious kind. Political economy is not a system, but a science of known facts, with their
i rationale. Communism s not a system, but a principle : many system-makers have adopted it as a basis for their plans ; but the very diversity of the schemes in which it is the essential prin- ciple shows that it is not a system. The essential principle in all the different systems that go by the generic name of Communism or Socialism is—industry exercised in maiiperation, and' common property in the fruits of that industry. The truth or falsehood of this doctrine does not affect its relation to political 'economy, which is that of a part to the description of the whole. Political economy is the science of the principles and operations concerned in the exercise of industry and the formation of wealth : in the actual state of Europe that science is incomplete unless it includes, among active principles, the principle of Communii; its con- firmation or confutation. Communism or its confutation is a qualifying part of political economy. -It is therefore a very grievous error to say that " both cannot be right—if Communism be the true system, political economy must be false." Without the inaccuracy of the terms, the writer could not have fallen into the blunder; but the mistake is more substantial than one of mere terminology, and it indicates the writer's notion that, for all his disclaimer, the philosophy to which he belongs is final. If Communism were concluded to he true, it spoutd form an addition and correction to the science of political economy; -just as the telescopic solubility of the nebulte has not disproved but corrected astronomy and enlarged the scope of its view.
; The truth or falsehoods, otsceserannisns Alt a-enet'" rdp-h-artiC:113;.an—d unreservedly disclaim the office of advocating Communism as the principle of any distinctive "system" of society ; we expressly abstain from pronouncing any Judgment on the comparative efficacy of Communistic motives to in- dustry • but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the doctrine exists, and obtains a support too respectable to be over- looked or slighted. The statistics of the existing Communistic sects are totally obscure ; but, while the doctrine is supported by writers of great ability, especially in France and Germany, it is notorious that large numbers of the working classes entertain the doctrine in this country, still larger in France, and great multi- tudes in Germany. A vast living inchoate revolution, which is in its tendency more subversive of the present social institutions than any that the world has yet witnessed, exists in unknown strength and numbers throughout the most intelligent part of Europe, "biding its time "—awaiting the peaceful propagation of its doctrine, if that be rapid enough, or else an opportunity for a rough establishing by fire and sword. The wide spread of a vio- lent Communism in large regions of Germany is notorious; the doctrine probably varying from something that resembles the Irish "fixity of tenure" to the wildest St. Simonianism : to it was attributed a species of incendiarism that harbingered the revolution of 1848; but whatever the views, numbers, and resources- of these great resident revolutionary hordes, we remain towards them in that worst kind of helplessness— ignorance. That want of knowledge is partly 'owing to the prevalence of the supercilious contempt for political and eco- nomical heterodoxy, like that entertained by W. S.; but a want of knowledge respecting so extensive and momentous an element of social ferment merits the term ignorance in its most opprobrious meaning—those who have the opportunity of throw- ing light upon the subject, and neglect it, deserve nothing but censure. A more practical turn among the French Communists, and the greater freedom of discussion in France—where the po- litical freedom of England is combined with the ethical freedom of Germany—have rendered the statistics of Communism in that country less obscure ; but they still want arranging and defining. And the juggle by which M. .Marie circumvented the Socialists of Paris, in establishing the workshops, too late disclaimed by M. Louis Blanc, has thrown a haze upon the subject, of which, with great impolicy, the state-philosophers of France make ample use. In England the boundary between Socialism and Chartism is un- defined, and it is the more so because both seta of (latrine are in a state of suspended animation; but while Owenism and the im- perfect Communism of Fourier have many adherents, the essen- tial principle is gaining ground among , still larger numbers. On sufficient inquiry, it would probably be found to be the prevalent philosophy of the working classes, as distinguished from the spe- cialities of daily politics and trade.
Now what we insist upon is, that this widespread doctrine—a
doctrine which has gained possession of immense sections of the labouring classes in three of the most important geographical sections of Europe--is not decorously or safely to be ignored. If you will not consider it betimes, it will force you to do so when it is too late for your safety or the desirable soltdori of the problem. You cannot avoid it—you must perforce *Ott it as symptom, either of some great unsatisfied impulse of human na- ture, or or some defect in our esent system, which provokes a corresponding counteraction. r You cannot gainsay its existence, you would be foolish to avert your tsouireyeasfrom its dangers ; and thus you are bound toinves i -11tu re and cause,—in. other words, whether to confirm, confute, or modify it, you will be com- pelled, vi et crisis, to study Communism. It is a question included, first in ra branch of political economy, and then in a branch of polity. But the instant you consent to examine the doctrine, you perceive that its essential dogma is no novelty. e repeat, that it is "practical Christianity "—videlicet, the precept to d love your neighbour as yourself" made the card. inal rule of con uct. It was reduced to practice by early Christians ; indeed, it is of much older date, and is lost in the remoteness of antiquity. In political economy, the question is, whether competing in leagued industry can create the larger amount of produce Ind proportion to population, and whether competing or leagued in us. ry can n the betterkeep the ratio of production ahead of population. I the cardinal question is, whether the motives f industry can be the better stirred under competing or leagued labour. It is a very idle and superficial objection to say, that Communism would subvert so- ciety, because it abolishes property; for that not only begs the question, but might be answered by the ry, pl that Communism would be, not the destruction, but the d evelopment and consoli- dation of property. It is idle and ignorant ant to say that labour would lack motive, for the success of itlh.ee Rap ites in America re- futes that assertion ; and if it is rep d that religious motives enter into the operations of that sect, then the continued exist- ence and progress of the Communist a it tutions of the Austrian "Military Frontier" establish the ,s that such duties may be performed from other motives besides thoseof competition. These facts donut settle the practicability of a Communist system, nor the expediency of giving special encouragement to the Commu- nist principle ; but they do establish the concomitant fact, that the principle specially vindicated by the Communists has worked to more or less extent. The principle, indeed, is continually at work, even in society where the "competitive" principle prevails ; and ther_e_forie.it_de. issssst-aswects-esierstritert36-g-el firtiiiiselk the largest share of produce or its representative emolument ; and that principle is vio- lated whenever numbers league to obtain large aggregate produce divisible among the cooperators. The multitudinous Whittington Club, by which leagued labour obtains luxuries which would be denied to each individual in "the higgling of the market," is an imperfect sample, but in principle it is flagrant Communism. So are the Union Schools which are to be established for the children of paupers and criminals—a Communistic minimum for education. So is everything that tends to make a Poor-law effective,—the industrial workhouse-farm at Sheffield, the asylum for aged pau- pers in Bethnal Green, the normal schools for pauper-instructers, the relaxation of settlement, and improved medical relief, the sale of medical advice being- as much a trade as the sale of shoes or coats. The students of political economy who lack the foresight or the trust to acquiesce in an enlargement of its scope, have indulged a rooted but disguised aversion from that class of questions, although they were inevitably embraced in the study : a Poor-law, which is fiat Communism, has always been handfed by the politico-eco- nomical dissector in gloves, as if it were a nasty and infectious subject. That avoidance has been partly owing to the circum- stance that the class of minds devoted to political economy has been rather of the " dry " than of the sympathetic- order, partly that the set in the current of inquiry thus accidentally given has diverted more comprehensive minds from the particular spot. But the ferment of society in Europe is now forcing attention to this neglected question—is forcing us to inquire whether we must really prepare our souls for a new social state of universal Com- munism; whether we ought to supersede and prevent that revolu- tion by giving- freer action to the Communistic principle which is already at work in our mixed social system ; or whether that principle originates in a fallacy, which will be exposed and ulti- mately will pass away. Europe is setting- a problem for political economy ; and if it be not scientifically worked out before the catastrophe, the political economists are unequal to their-hcience.
Previous page
