The Commonweal/Volume 1/Number 1/British Socialism and the “Weekly Dispatch”

by Edward Bibbins Aveling

BRITISH SOCIALISM AND THE “WEEKLY DISPATCH.”

⟨The Weekly⟩ Dispatch⟨,⟩ a paper that is cer(illegible text) wholly devoted (illegible text)tal, had in its issue of February 11 a leader on (illegible text) Socialism. The article is apparently (illegible text) a leader on the (illegible text) as almost to breed contempt—embodied in the (illegible text) Latin phrase“lucus a non lucendo.” The article is as (illegible text) as its writer is ignorant of the meaning of Socialism.

(illegible text)hat the writer knows little, if anything, of Socialists in shown by his (illegible text)ing of the “big words and the tone of mysterious importance always adopted by a Socialist.” Whenever the writer or any one else (illegible text) any one in England using big words or afflicted with a tone “of mysterious importance,” he may be sure that he has not met a Socialist. His words are foolish if they are not endorsed by large numbers, and unnecessary if they are thus endorsed.

As the Weekly Dispatch writer does not know our principles, his ignorance as to the “actual work” done is as natural as it is complete. He has evidently not read a line of any of the standard works on Socialism. It is doubtful if he has even skimmed airily through a pamphlet or two. Such papers as the Sozial-Demokrat, the Neu (illegible text) Volkszeitung, Recht vor Allen, probably never meet his eye. ⟨It would⟩ be interesting to know his views on the recent elections in Germany, and the number of open-air East-End meetings he has attended—as interesting as the study of any other non-existent quantity is to mathematicians.

It may be fair, as the lead-writer hath it, to take the manifesto published in To-Day of January as typical Socialist views. It would be fairer, in our opinion, if we may trouble our critic to read as many as two articles, were he to take “for a taste” the manifesto issued in this journal. In it, to note but a single point, he will find that State regulated labour and distribution are not, in Socialistic ideas, labour and distribution regulated by the State as it is to-day. “The State” will be as changed from what it now is and is not as events will be. This idea will come with a shock to our article-writer, who is clearly no revolutionist. For he talks of “the probable course of events continuing along the old lines.” Were he an evolutionist, he might be asked if there is any domain of Nature in which things do continue “along the old lines.” Not being an evolutionist, he might seriously maintain that the principle which governs alike the origin of worlds and the (illegible text) of a flower, does not hold in sociology.

“Extreme poverty” is sometimes caused by idleness, intemperance (illegible text)revidence. Sometimes also by the greed of rich employers, un-(illegible text) legislation, fluctuations of trade. We should be grateful for that (illegible text)o.” Even a writer in the capitalistic press should know, nay, does (illegible text) of a swarm of other (illegible text). “The greed of rich employers,” (illegible text)he lust for surplus-labour, is the parent of the whole spawn.

(illegible text)k also, the true capitalistic whine, not without its note on (illegible text), “the rich being compelled to empty their pockets for the maintenance of the poor.” Not a word as to the emptying to-day, not (illegible text)ets, but of lives by the workers for the maintenance of the middle and upper classes; no word as to the means by which to-day (illegible text)kets have been filled; no word as to the honest work to be (illegible text) in the future by all not incapacitated by physical weakness or (illegible text) idleness; no word as to the obliteration in the future of the (illegible text) distinctions now warping and marring the life of man, and the (illegible text) of those very hideous words “rich” and “poor.”

(illegible text)—is it, alas! or well a day?—at length we are in accord with our (illegible text) “We believe that co-operation amongst the labourers and in(illegible text) education will go far.” Socialists believe these will go further than the Weekly Dispatch even dreams, and not fare worse. Co-operation amongst labourers—truly. But not for profit—for justice. Education also. Not that they may be the better tools for the capitalist, but that they may understand who and what they are, who and what their (illegible text)eature the capitalist is. Our accord is but brief. In the same sentence as “co-operation and education,” we have “poor laws” and “charities.” When once the means of production are in the hands of the producers, and the producers are the whole community, poor laws and charities will have vanished with the rest of the offspring of capital.

The objectless objects are once again wearily revived. “How will we force men to save capital?” But capital is a means of production, and as such can never be the property of an individual, but the community. “How will the labourers be persuaded to work (illegible text), if they cross their legs and talk Socialism, &c.” The host of (illegible text) lost (illegible text) of here! Note one or two only. Labour will not then be the burden it is, bu the joy it should be. Crossing the legs is only (illegible text)nt after the energies have been in action. Talking Socialism then (illegible text) be like counting the number of respirations one marked per (illegible text) now. And the writer forgets that we exempt from our pro(illegible text) as a nation, not only the stick, but the criminal, whose crime is (illegible text), for whom and his fellows, ever diminishing in numbers, for (illegible text)ing time restriction will be needed.

⟨Then⟩ our article-writer wants a guarantee that the best goods are to ⟨be⟩ had at the lowest prices, and with a delicious unconscienceness opens (illegible text) us the infinite vistas of adulteration under the present system. (illegible text) thereupon he sings his monotonous chant of individual freedom. ⟨“An⟩ artisan may now choose his favourite amusements as taste (illegible text)es.” And why, in the name of man, may he not under the (illegible text)ist regime? Under this, the only differences will be, that not only (illegible text) artisan of to-day, but the millions lower than he (save the mark!) (illegible text) also be in a position to choose, and that the “taste” that is to (illegible text) and heightened.

“The schools, theatres,” and the like are “to be supplied by the Government.” Truly. But not the Government as it is now and ever more ought not to be—a group of non-producers. And why this outcry against this arrangement in a paper that has been a persistent ⟨and⟩ inconsistent supporter of Board schools from the outset?

The lofty conception that our critic has of his fellows, on the (illegible text)quoque principle, it is to be feared, is evidenced by one charming sentence. “The highest ambition of a citizen will be to talk the loudest and the longest in the public assembly, and his daily endeavour will be to grab his share of the national wealth while escaping the observation of the national overseer.” He is, as so many do, reading into the conditions that are coming the competition-spirit and dishonesty that are the natural outcome of the conditions now existent, and that will die with these.

The last paragraph is not without its sneer. In reply to that let me say two things as I end: (1) The League has already taken very definite shape, and is daily enrolling members and forming branches; (2) That which we call “with unintentional sarcasm scientific socialism” does actually exist. In evidence of this, the Socialist League has had the honour to forward to the writer of the article on English Socialism in the Weekly Dispatch a ticket of admission to the lesson to be given at South Place Institute. They will be an attempt to lay down a part, and only a part, of the scientific basis of our belief.

EDWARD AVELING.