A PLEA FOR REASONABLE SOCIALISM.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR."1
Sin,—Mr. Asquith, having a legali3 trained mind, suggests the desirability of defining what we mean by " Socialism." At present this extremely vague term seems to be applied equally to the views of the mild Liberal who approves of the London County Council running tramcars along the Embank- ment and to the system which would nationalise all forms of capital and means of production, and, in your own words, " must mean the overthrow of the Christian moral code in regard to marriage and the relations of the sexes, and must end in free love and promiscuity."
As a party move it may perhaps pay to speak as though there were no distinction, and that the mildest approval of
municipal trading must involve the cataclysm you deplore. But for those who seek truth cannot Socialism be painted in less lurid colours P It appears to me that in its essence Socialism is only recognition of the fact that human beings live in society, that each depends upon his fellows for services, and ought therefore to render services in return. It also recognises that there are some services " for which only the community as a whole can make adequate and effective provision." Take the case of our roads and bridges. Not to speak of the time when they were the property of the feudal lord who took his tolls of "frontage and passage," we are many of us old enough to remember paying a penny to cross Waterloo Bridge and tolls for driving along the "turnpike" roads. Our pennies and tolls then went into the pockets of private adventurers or "Trusts." Now our bridges and roads are "socialised" and maintained by the community, and the fiercest individualist would hardly wish to do away with this experiment in Socialism. So far we are all Socialists, and have admitted that Socialism has a place in our system. The only question is how far is it to be extended. That there are extremists who would carry it beyond reasonable limits is not to be denied. There have been extremists who have preached extravagant doctrines about the divine rights of Kings and of property. Happily the country is not governed by extremists, but by the " man in the street," and until the nature of English- men is changed we may feel sure that no step in advance will be taken without caution, deliberation, and careful testing of the ground. That there will be some progress in the direction of more "collective and organised efforts of the community" is probable as the people advance in the knowledge and practice of governing. It is probable, too, that there will be increased endeavours to improve the material comfort and the opportunities of the poorer classes. No one who compares the social condition of the country in the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries can deny that there is still a considerable balance against them to be redressed. But the English people are essentially conserva- tive, and are most unlikely ever to abandon their love of home and family life. At the worst, considering the rate they are likely to advance, we may safely reckon upon many centuries before we arrive at the overthrow of the Christian moral code, and "end in free love and promiscuity."
According to the Bishop of Truro, as quoted by a corre- spondent in your last issue, " Christian Socialism says : What is mine is yours." Would it not be more apt to say that true or " Christian" Socialism is an expression of the injunction : " Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ" ?—I am, Sir, Ste., W. R. M.
[We have never objected to all State action, or used language which can be regarded as representing every form of municipal trading either as always indefensible or as ending in free love. We desire, as we have said elsewhere, to see each specific proposal judged on its merits. It is on the merits that we condemn old-age pensions as likely to sap the strength of the nation, and, owing to the vast expenditure required, certain to destroy Free-trade.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
