British Socialism Part 28

[635] _Should the Working-cla.s.s Support the Liberal Party?_ p. 13.

[636] _Twentieth Century Politics_, p. 4.

[637] Russell Williams, _The Difficulties of Socialism_, pp. 3, 4.

[638] _Twentieth Century Politics_, p. 6.

[639] Penny, _The Political Labour Movement_, p. 4.

[640] _Twentieth Century Politics_, p. 2.

[641] Penny, _The Political Labour Movement_, p. 3.

[642] Bax, _Outlooks from the New Standpoint_, pp. 69, 70.

[643] _New Age_, October 10, 1907.

[644] _Daily News_, January 20, 1906.

[645] _The Reformers' Year Book_, 1906, Preface p. 6.

[646] _Ibid._ 1907, p. 104.

[647] _Ibid._ Preface.

[648] _Clarion_, November 1, 1907.

[649] Leatham, _The Evolution of the Fourth Estate_, p. 14.

[650] Penny, _The Political Labour Movement_, p. 13.

[651] _Socialism and Labour Policy_, p. 14.

[652] _New Age_, November 7, 1907.

[653] _Ibid._

[654] _Clarion_, January 19, 1906.

[655] Marx and Engels, _Manifesto_, p. 22.

[656] _Declaration of Socialist Party of Great Britain_, see Appendix.

[657] Leatham, _The Evolution of the Fourth Estate_, p. 16.

[658] _Declaration of Principles of Socialist Party of Great Britain._

[659] Keir Hardie, _From Serfdom to Socialism_, p. 30.

[660] Marx and Engels, _Manifesto of the Communist Party_, p. 16.

[661] Blatchford, _Britain for the British_, pp. 148, 149.

[662] _Social-Democratic Federation Song Book_, p. 30.

[663] _Clarion Song Book_, p. 21.

[664] _Socialism and Labour Policy_, p. 3.

[665] _What Socialism Is_, p. 3.

[666] Leakey, _Co-operators and Labour Platform_, p. 16.

[667] Shaw, _The Impossibilities of Anarchism_, p. 26.

CHAPTER XVII

SOCIALISM AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Many Socialists, especially the Fabians, hope to introduce Socialistic principles and Socialistic rule into Great Britain rather through the local than through the national authorities. They are strenuously exerting themselves to bring about that result, and so far their exertions have been by no means unsuccessful.

"Socialists to-day are working in the towns with a twofold object. (1) To level up their districts. If Glasgow has munic.i.p.al telephones, there is a very good precedent for Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, &c., doing likewise. If Liverpool owns a munic.i.p.al milk-supply, London, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, must be brought into line. Each town must adopt the good points from every other town. (2) To urge their districts to launch out into something new."[668] "The property held and worked and controlled by munic.i.p.alities already exceeds _500,000,000l._ sterling in value, and is being added to yearly. This process has but to continue long enough to ensure that every industry will pa.s.s under public control, and thus State Socialism will become an accomplished fact by a gradual process of easy transition."[669]

"The proper sphere of munic.i.p.al activity includes everything a munic.i.p.ality can do better than a private company."[670] "The immediate object should be to munic.i.p.alise all those services which are necessary to a healthy life. Food, fuel, clothing, shelter--these are required by all--and no man should have the right to deny them to any worker. We must not stop at munic.i.p.al trams. We must not stop at munic.i.p.al gas. We must not stop at munic.i.p.al electricity. These are only stepping-stones. Not until we can say that poverty and disease and unemployment are abolished out of the land shall we have the right to discuss the limits of munic.i.p.al trading."[671] "The economic forces which replaced the workshop by the factory will replace the private shop by the munic.i.p.al store, and the private factory by the munic.i.p.al one."[672]

According to Socialist teaching the destruction of private enterprise by munic.i.p.al undertakings will be a blessing to all citizens. "Where a city supplies its own gas there is no 'middle-man.' The corporation stands in the place of the 'middle-man,' and as the corporation is elected by the citizens the people are thus in the position of getting their own gas made and paying for it in their own way. Some of the citizens are makers of gas, or workmen; most of the citizens are users of gas, or consumers; and all of the citizens are owners and managers of the gasworks and of the gas supply."[673]

The suppression of the "unnecessary middleman" sounds so very plausible that it is certain to prove an excellent election cry. But has the middleman really disappeared when a city corporation takes his place? Does the corporation-middleman supply gas gratis? Are the private middleman's profits not distributed to a host of corporation officials in the shape of substantial salaries? The transfer of gasworks, &c., from private hands to a city corporation is no doubt very beneficial to those who draw the corporation salaries. It may be very profitable to the local politicians and their hangers-on. Jobs may be had as a reward for political support. But the citizens may find the gas to be no cheaper and the rates to be considerably higher after the suppression of the "unnecessary middleman." And will it then console him that he is the "owner and manager of the gasworks and of the gas supply"?

Under the heading "The Justice of Abolis.h.i.+ng the Private Trader" one of the leading champions of munic.i.p.al Socialism writes: "Is it unfair to take away the living of the private trader? Then it is unfair to take away the living of the unemployed, the twelve millions on the verge of starvation, and the thousands slain annually by poverty and preventable disease. I say that the welfare of the nation must be considered before the profits of the monopolists and the wasteful freedom of the small trader. Under the present system a large proportion of the population have so deteriorated in health and stamina as to endanger the existence of the nation. Private enterprise and compet.i.tion are responsible for nine-tenths of the misery and suffering of our twenty million poor. But we must not attempt to alter the conditions because the small private trader would be ruined.

Nevertheless the system is going to be altered, whether the small trader likes it or not."[674]

The foregoing are typical Socialist arguments. In the first place, the writer grossly exaggerates existing poverty by speaking of "twenty million poor." Then he boldly a.s.serts that all poverty is due to private enterprise and that munic.i.p.al enterprise will abolish it. So far munic.i.p.al enterprise has not even succeeded in diminis.h.i.+ng poverty. On the contrary, with the phenomenal growth of munic.i.p.al enterprise in Great Britain pauperism, actual and percentual, has also grown at an alarming rate. It is significant that poverty and distress have increased most rapidly, and have become most acute, in those localities in which munic.i.p.al enterprise has been most active and in which Socialist councils have held undisputed sway, as, for instance, in East and West Ham and Poplar. Munic.i.p.al enterprise, by increasing the rates--and, with the rates, the rents--has increased the general cost of living without at the same time increasing production. On the contrary, it has driven factories away through high rates. Therefore munic.i.p.al enterprise has increased the expenditure of the general body of workers without increasing their earnings, and consequently has directly increased the existing poverty which it has promised to abolish. Munic.i.p.al enterprise has succeeded chiefly in giving from the rates high wages to munic.i.p.al employees at the cost of all other workers.

Munic.i.p.al Socialists rather rely on force than on justice in dealing with private business men. "For private traders to fight against munic.i.p.alisation is a short-sighted policy. One thing is certain--they have to go. 'What! Compete with us with the ratepayers' money? Our own money? What injustice!' says the small trader."[675] This just objection of the ratepayers is answered with a contemptible quibble.

"The small trader is mistaken. The munic.i.p.ality does not use their money, and would not use their money, under the supposed circ.u.mstances. If the London County Council decided to open 1,000 bread-shops, how would they raise the capital required? Not by taking the ratepayers' money, or the private traders' money, but by going into the money market and borrowing on the credit of all the citizens.

Suppose _100,000l._ were required? Not a penny would come out of the rates. The credit of all the citizens of London is so good that they can borrow all the money they want without any difficulty."[676] In other words, the Social-"Democratic" politician claims for himself the right of arbitrarily depriving citizens who possess property of that property and to ruin them by underselling them. They borrow the money they require for these undertakings on the credit of the very property-owners whom they wish to ruin, not on the credit of "all the citizens," as Mr. Suthers pretends, and then they have the impudence to a.s.sert that the corporations do not ruin the citizens with their own money but only with money borrowed on their credit--as if the one were not identical with the other.

The objections to munic.i.p.al enterprise on a Socialist basis are twofold:

(1) That it increases the rates and the munic.i.p.al debt, and therefore the rent of houses and lodgings;

(2) That it is, on the whole, unprofitable, being undertaken without due regard to sound finance, efficiency, and economy.