Socialism Not the Best Remedy: Being a Reprint of John Smith's Reply to "Merrie England"

Front matter

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

Chapter I.— -Introduction II.— The Problem to be Solved

III. —Competition and Prerogativk

IV.— Competition

V.-AVaste

VI.— Cheapness VII.— Natural KioHTei VIII.— Rent and Interest IX.— What Socialism is to Accomplish X.— The BirrER Cost of a Bad System XI.— Practical Politics

Preface To Re-issue

EvEBY right-thinking person must rejoice that, with the advent of a Liberal Govfemment to power, the question of Poverty in its varied phases is once again receiving something of the attention it requires. The Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, has so frequently dealt with this subject in his speeches that it is certain the Government will introduce legislation having for its object the bettering of the condition of the workers. Upon the character of that legislation the future welfare of the country will, to a large extent, depend. It is imperative that correct thought precede action, and danger lies in the fact that a section of the community are loudly demanding so-called " reforms," the result of which will be to make the condition of the people worse even than it is at present. It is very easy to destroy ; any child can do that. But the true statesman endeavours to introduce reforms that are not revolutionary in their character, and that will benefit without also inflicting widespread evil.

At the suggestion of several friends I have re-printed this little work that was written ten years ago to combat the Socialistic arguments put forward in '' Merrie England.'' The evils that confront us when we consider the social problem must have a cause. Men do not work " long hours '' from choice, nor prefer a small wage to a proper income. Before we can deal with the problem of poverty in the midst of and in many cases actually caused by plenty, we must find out the cause of the evil. In '' Merrie England '* an attempt is made to discover the causes, which are declared to be " Prerogative " and Competition ; by " Prerogative " is meant the land monopoly. Coupling the two together, and laying stress upon the evils of Competition, " Nunquam " arrives at the conclusion that the landowners must be bought out and the State organise the labour of all the nation. This involves the complete overthrow of personal liberty. If we once admit the claim made by " Nunquam " and other Socialists, that " no

VJ man has a right to himself " and that " no man has a right to land," we embark on a course that is perilously near chattel slavery. It sounds very plausible to talk of the people organising everything for themselves, but how is it to be done ? Take any individual artisan, clerk, or merchant, and ask yourself, " How much influence has that man in electing a Parliament that makes the laws under which he lives?" The answer must be, "Practically, almost none.' lie is a mere unit. Take a smaller body, a Town Council or an Urban District Council, what influence has the individual voter? Again, practically none. To give to these or similar bodies the power to say what occupation a man or woman is to follow, what their hours of labour are to be, what their pay, where they are to live, what is to be done with their children — is to hand the nation over into the power of a government compared with which the most despotic government in existence in civilised countries will be free and democratic.

Such Socialist experiments have been tried over and over again, and tried under the most favourable conditions. Bodies of Socialists, filled with the same desires and hopes, have banded themselves to carry out practically the dream of equality. They have all failed. After a short time human nature has asserted itself, quarrels have arisen, and the settlement been broken up. Yet we are asked to believe that taking the nation as at present composed, clever people and fools, industrious people and idle people, moral people and immoral people, sober people and drunkards — to say nothing of the inherent differences arising from differing religious beliefs, political ideas, &c. ; yet men will be found skilful enough to organise all this heterogeneous mass, and so manage that each will do his or her proper share of work and be content with the proper share of the produce. We hand over to these governors the army and the police, to be in their hands the instruments of t)n:anny. It is admitted by all these would-be managers that in every district there must be a hardlabour colony for all who will not do what the rulers desire and command. The home life would be absolutely broken up and even the most sacred relations interfered with. For if the

Vll.

Grovemment is to provide work and fuod for all the population it would soon insist upon having the right to regulate the number of people it could provide for. If a vast wave of public opinion rises against these governors, thie late Government has shewn us that all that is necessary is to plunge the nation in a war with some foreign power, and another " Khaki Election " will secure their tenure of office ; or, if they do not plunge us into war, another Education Act will suffice to distract attention and divide the nation in twain over religious differences.

It cannot be urged that the process would be so gradual that the nation would be prepared for each stage as it arose, and thus confusion avoided. The latest movement is that for " A Minimum Wage," and the advocates of this measure admit that it would be absolutely necessary for the State to provide for the people out of work, and that the first effect of the measure would be to largely increase the number of the out-of-works. It would also, they admit, destroy to a large extent our foreign trade, since it would be necessary to prevent the products of foreign " sweated industry " coming into this country. It would, in fact, absolutely destroy our present industrial system, and thus precipitate the time when it would be necessary for the Government to " nationalise all the instruments of production, distribution, and exchange/' and organise the people in one vast industrial army.

The advantage of dealing with *' Merrie England " was then, and now is, that it enabled us to criticise the reasons upon which such vast changes in our principle of government are alleged to be necessary. " Nunquam's " chain of reasoning is faulty, and we are enabled to place our finger upon one point after another in his arguments and say " Here is where you have gone wrong." It will be found that " Nunquam," like the Fabians in the " Fabian Essays/' depends for his argument upon the effect of the evil wrought by allowing land, — from which labour can alone produce wealth — to be the private monopoly of a few. That is the root of the evil. Man must have land, and if he can only have access to land by the permission of and on the terms demanded by the fortunate

▼111.

owner, he i», to all intents and purposes, that owner's slave. But in place of saying " Private property in land b the source of evil," the Socialists say " Private property in anything is an evil." There is all the diflPerence in the world in the two things. A man may have a monopoly of a picture, which, owing to the death of the skilled artist, is year by year rising in value; but he does not thereby inflict any injury upon anyone. But, to take the recent case of the newly discovered coal fields in Kent, it is a distinct injury to the nation that one or two men can come forward and say, " This is ours." Still more is it an injury in the case of land that is wanted day by day for use. What we have to do is to break down the land monopoly, and, as I have endeavoured to show in the book, that can best be done by the Taxation of Land Values. In the process of breaking down the land monopoly in this manner we have also raised a fund that will allow us to give Old-Age Pensions, and in many other ways give immediate relief to those who from age or infirmity cannot work for themselves.

It may be urged that " Merrie England " is no longer in extensive circulation, and that if I wished to argue with Mr. Blatchford I ought to have chosen his later work, " Britain for the British." Had the latter work — which is merely a re-hash of " Merrie England " — contained any attempt to deal with the objections I and many others have, on the platform and in the press, raised to his arguments, then the objection would have had some weight; but Mr. Blatchford is a writer who thinks the best way to answer opponents is to ignore them. This is not a heroic method, but probably " Nunquam" thinks it the safest manner of dealing with those who dispute his conclusions. No one knows better than he that the nuin who more than any other brought this question of poverty to the front in this country, the United States, and Australia, was the late Henry George. In every one of his numerous works Henry George fairly faced the question of Socialism, and endeavoured to prove that it was a cumbersome method of dealing with the social problem, that it denied justice to the individual, and would fail to solve the evils that were crushing

IX.

the workers. Some of his books, such as " The Condition of Labour " and " A Perplexed Philosopher/' were practically written in order to show where Socialism is wrong. *' Nunquam " advises his readers to read Henry George's works, but for his own part shrinks from criticising George's arguments. We have in every English-speaking country thousands who hold that Socialism is not the best remedy; that what is really needed is to break down the land monopoly, and give Labour and Capital access to natural opportunities, and then the worker can work out his own social salvation. We have in this country the Financial Reform Association, the English and Scottish branches of the Society for the Taxation of Land Values, and other bodies, who for years have been engaged in actually disputing with Socialists, and maintaining that the Taxation of Land Values will do more than Socialist remedies can do for the workers; yet " Nunquam/' in '' Britain for the British," has the effrontery to say, " The remedy for this evil state of affairs — the only remedy yet suggested — is Socialism." Such a statement is, of course, absolutely untrue.

But this is not ail. I have stated that in the opinion of thousands all that is necessary for the Government to do is to break down the land monopoly by the Taxation of Land Values. Now that has been a plank in the Liberal programme for many years. Resolutions in its favour have been for several years introduced into the House of Commons, and at last even carried against the Tory Gk>vernment. Many other measures, such as the removal of the taxes on food, the Land Tenure Bill for farmers, &c., &c., have been frequently brought forward as parts of the Liberal programme ; yet, according to ** Nunquam " in his " Britain for the British," the Liberal programme is confined to the following: — 1, Manhood Suffrage (which, by the bye, is not part of the Liberal programme at all); 2, Payment of Members of Parliament; 3, Payment of Election Expenses; 4, The Second Ballot; 5, Abolition of Dual Voting ; 6, Disestablishment of the Church ; 7, Abolition of the House of Lords. '' And," he says, " it is alleged by large numbers of people, all of them, for some inexplicable reason, proud of their hard common-sense, that the passing oi this programme into law would, in some manner yet to be expounded, make Miserable England into Merry England, and silence the visionaries and agitators for ever." Mr. Blatchford thus omits from the programme the most important measure of all, as well as sundry smaller measures, and then sneers at the programme thus wilfully mutilated as being of no use. This is not honest and not British.

Another object in view in re-issuing this work is to urge upon Liberals and Socialists alike the necessity of bringing pressure to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include the Taxation of Land Values in his next Budget. When thus introduced it is beyond the power of the House of Lords. Although they may not amend financial measures, the Lords reject them altogether. A separate measure for the Taxation of Land Values may thus be thrown out, but to reject a whole Budget would bring all national government to a standstill. The condition of the masses calls for immediate attention, and, while graduation of the Income Tax or further graduation of the ** Death Duties " may bring in revenue, they do not in any way stop the cause of the awful inequalities in the conditions under which the people live and work. The Taxation of Land Values, on the other hand, will not only bring in a large revenue, but also — and more important — cut off the root cause of these inequalities, stop the influx of labourers from the country into the towns, give opportunities for work to the unemployed, provide cheap land for housing, raise wages, and, generally, allow the principle of Freedom such development as to enable the workers to enjoy their full share of the wealth they produce.

J. W. S. CALLIE.

48, Sea View Road,

LiscARD, Cheshire, 1906.

PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION.

It has not been pleasure but a sense of duty that has caused me to write this reply to * Merrie England." I read several of the articles as they appeared in The Clarion, and though I did not agree with much in them, yet I welcomed anything that would have the effect of directing attention to the Labour Problem. But when the work began to be circulated by the hundred thousand ; to be accepted as the text book in political economy by many working men; and still more to be quoted as proving the necessity for the creation of a political party, having for its aim the carrying into legislation of the plans suggested in the book, I felt that a reply was necessary.

The question then came, What form was that reply to take? It occurred to me, as I was thinking the matter over, '* If you were John Smith, and Nunquam were writing these letters to you, how would you reply to him?" So I determined to write the answer just as if the book had been sent to me, and my opinion personally requested. Hence the title.

I attack his arguments where I think they are wrong, but take this opportunity, in the very preface of the pamphlet, to repudiate any desire to attack Nunquam personally. I believe him to be actuated entirely by a desire to elevate the condition of his fellows. Eveiything I have heard of him has only deepened my respect for him and his motives. But we are dealing with a most important subject, the welfare of all the individuals composing this nation is at stake, and I should be acting the part of a coward if I hesitated to denounce, to the utmost of my ability, measures I think would be fatal to the best interests of the people.

I have endeavoured to shew that " splitting up the Liberal Party '' will be a false step: that the programme of that party contains the best and speediest means of improving the condition of the people; and I protest against the assumption that that party is not in earnest. " What is the

Liberal Party?" Do the few men composing the Cabinet, or even the three hundred odd Liberal Members of Parliament, compose the Liberal Party? Certainly not. The Liberal Party consists of the men throughout the country who have sent those men to Parliament. It is a party with grand traditions, and still grander aspirations. All that is wanted to allow those aspirations to be carried into legislation is — Unity. But if, in place of all reformers uniting to carry into effect the reforms we have embodied in the Liberal Programme, we have the advice *' Split up the Liberal Party and form another," how can reforms be secured?

Consider the importance of time in this work. Grant that they defeat the Liberals at the next election, will a Socialist Party be put in power ? Certainly not. We shall have another six or seven years of Tory rule. Can we expect reforms from the party of privilege? What about the people in our slums during that time? By united action we can help them immediately, by disunion we postpone relief. Nor will it be merely for six or seven years; Socialism will not have the rapid march to victory some of its advocates imagine. It will be several times six years, and though to the artisan, with a regular wage, this may not be a serious matter, the lowest class — the people who need help most — are perishing.

Let us not imitate the Dog and the Shadow, but take advantage of present opportunities: it is the best way to secure the true realisation of a " Merrie England."

J. W. S. CALLIE.

Wallasey, Cheshire, 1895.

TO

"MERRIE ENGLAND."

CHAPTER I.

Introduction

" We maintain that a man may be slain, enslaved, or defrauded, quite as tin justly by a government as by a private individual ; and that such crimes on the part of a government are usually incomparably more prejudicial to the great body of society than any amount of individual crime that could reasonably be expected to take place in a civilised country. No instance can he adduced of a country being brought to ruin and degradation by individual crime, whereas legislative crime has produced revolutions, persecutions, civil wars, anarchies, and decays innumerable." — P, E. Dove.

My Dear Nunquam,

I have read your letters which have been reprinted under the title of " Merrie England *' with interest.

You have, no doubt, put the case for Socialism in an attractive form ; but there is no advantage you claim for it that cannot, in my opinion, be secured by carrying out the Liberal programme, and without the red-tapeism and interference with individual liberty Socialism involves.

There is much in your book with which everyone will agree, at least in theory. You say that we ought to pay less attention to our animal needs, and more to our mental requirements. This has not, of necessity, any connection with Socialism. I do not need to be a Socialist in order to become a teetotaller, non-smoker, or vegetarian.

A

Again, there are many things in your book that are, and have been, advocated as strenuously by the Radical as by the Socialist. It is absurd to try and make out that Socialists are the only people who are striving to bring about a change for the better in the condition of the workers of this country. It is because / do not believe that the present conditions are good or fair that I am a Radical. If I thought they were good I would be a Conservative — that is, try to conserve them.

As a Radical, I protest against the assumption that runs throughout the whole of " Merrie England," that you are more in earnest, more sincere in your efforts to promote the welfare of the masses of the country than I am. So far from that being the case, I hold that the Radical programme will do far more for the workers of this country than your Socialist programme will.

You Socialists do not fight fair. For instance, you insist that there is no choice between the present conditions — which we all admit to be bad — and Socialism. On page 99, you say :

Good or bad, wise or foolish, Socialism is the only remedy in sight. None of its opponents, none of your friends the members of Parliament, the old trade union leaders, Tory or Liberal editors, parsons, priests, and lawyers, men of substance have any remedy to offer at all.

Did you ever read a book called " Progress and Poverty "? You advised me to read it, but have you ever read it yourself ? I do not think you have, otherwise you would have known that Henry George, the man who has done more than anyone else to bring these social questions to the front in this and all other English-speaking countries, says that the taxation of land values, by breaking down the land monopoly, and thus allowing labour access to natural opportunities, will solve the labour problem . Yes ; solve it.

Do you know that the taxation of land values is a plank in the Liberal programme? If you had read George's works you would have known that Henry George is no Socialist. That is, according to the idea of Socialism in " Merrie England." For

Mr. George's opinion, see footnote, page 14. Had you known anything of the George movement you would have known that many of the Socialists are his bitterest opponents. I myself was present at a meeting addressed by him in Manchester some three years ago, when some of the Socialists of Manchester tried to break that meeting up, and left the hall shouting out " Three cheers for the bloody revolution !" Gronlund and other American Socialists attack George and try to answer him. You practically boycot him.

I know you will say that you have advised me to read Henry Greorge's works, but you have advised me to read a whole lot of books, far more than my time will allow me to read or my purse to purchase.

A working man has not much leisure for reading, nor much money to spend in books, and if I am to follow your advice it will be a long time before I read any of George's works. In the appendix to " Merrie England " you give the books I ought to read, and the order in which I ought to read them. In what position do George's works come.

First I am told I ought to read sixteen pamphlets, costing one and sevenpence.

Then— -not " Progress and Poverty '—but " The Child's History of England," by Charles Dickens. Now, I admire Dickens as a novelist ; but a historian requires a very different set of qualities to the novelist, and though I will be the first to admit the breadth of view and the large-mindedness of Charles Dickens, yet I do not think that he can be taken as an authority on matters of history.

The next book is " Hard Times," also by Dickens. This is a novel, but though it will explain what you mean when you call capitalists " Gradgrinds," it will not throw any light on the labour problem.

After spending five shillings on these two books, I am next told to read Thackeray's " Book of Snobs," an exposure of some phases of London club life, but again not of the slightest use as a study of the labour question.

And so on. I have to read these pamphlets and then sixteen other books, expending nearly thirty shillings, and, after all these, come —

17, " Social Problems," by Henry George.

18, " Progress and Poverty," by Henry George.

If you had read George's works yourself you would have known that he over and over again attacks Socialism as unnecessary. Yet throughout the whole of "Merrie England" we do not find the slightest attempt to reply to any of hia attacks.

You take the " Liberty and Property Defence League " as the representatives of Individualism. Now, they are much easier to answer than George; but, if you want to convert a nation to your views and not merely to gain a paltry advantage over opponents, you ought to have taken the strongest advocates of Individualism, not the weakest.

I protest against your wholesale denunciation of capitalists as grasping, selfish men, whose idea is to make money. There are many such; but is selfishness the private monopoly of capitalists? Have the workers none of it at all? There are good and bad in every class. Be fair to the capitalist, and do not hold him up as simply a man-devouring ogre.

Again, I protest against your attacks upon the " Manchester School." You seem to think that the man must be constantly denounced for his shortcomings as a child. The Manchester School did a good work in its day. They saw that there was a great evil pressing on the people and ruining trade — the high price of food, owing to the Corn Laws. They believed that if they could only get free exchange of commodities all would be well.

They got free exchange of commodities, but found that still there was a labour problem. In the speech delivered at

Rochdale on November 23, 1864 — his last speech — Mr. Cobden said —

The Edinburgh Review of last month .... speaks of the measures that still require to be carried out in England in our domestic policy, for which course we shall have time when we give up meddling with everybody's affairs on the face of the earth. Now here are the reviewer's own words, in speaking of the domestic reforms which await our attention at home, " We have still to apply to land and to labour that freedom which has worked such marvels in the case of capital and commerce.*' Bear in mind, this is not my language about '* Free-trade in land." But I say " Amen " to it. If I were five-and-twenty or thirty, instead of unhappily twice that number of years, I would take Adam Smith in hand — I would not go beyond him; I would have no politics in it — I would take Adam Smith in hand, and I would have a League for Free Trade in Land, just as we had a league for free trade in corn. You will find just the same authority in Adam Smith for the one as for the other ; and if it were only taken up as it must be taken up ' to succeed, not as a political, revolutionary, Radical, Chartist notion, but taken up on politico-economic grounds, the agitation would be sure to succeed ; and if you can apply free trade to land and labour too — that is, by getting rid of those abominable restrictions in your parish settlements, and the like — then, I say, the men who do that will have done for England probably more than we have been able to do by making free trade in com.

You put down to selfishness what was merely due to lack of knowledge. They thought free trade in corn would prove the solution of the Labour Problem. When they found it was not so, they went further, and, perceiving that the fault lay in the land question somewhere, went in for Free Trade in Land.

Had Cobden lived he would have perceived that free trade in land was not enough. Many of his followers perceive it now. But because they were not able to fathom the real evil, that is no reason why they ought not to have credit for what they did. The logical outcome of the Manchester School of teaching is that plank — The Taxation of Land Values — whereby the land monopoly will be broken down. The men who support this reform are the representatives of the Manchester School ; not some Tory who adopts as his ideas the real Manchester Schoolmen have outgrown.

Why, take your own case. On page 29 you say —

The Manchester School would have us believe that we cannot feed 36 millions.

Yet the very preceding paragraph on that page is —

Now read this quotation, from a speech of Mr. Cobden's at Manchester: —

" I have heard Mr. Ogilvey say — and he is willing to go before a committee of the House to prove it — that Cheshire, if properly cultivated, is capable of producing three times as much as it now produces from its surface . . . and there is not a higher authority in the kingdom."

That was in 1844, at a time when England grew wheat for 24,000,000 of its people.