Communism.pdf

7/29/2019 Communism.pdf

1/17

CommunismAuthor(s): Robertson, Edward StanleyReviewed work(s):Source: Bristol Selected Pamphlets, (1883)Published by: University of Bristol LibraryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/60247896 .

Accessed: 19/02/2013 21:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Digitization of this work funded by the JISC Digitisation Programme.

University of Bristol Library and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Bristol Selected Pamphlets.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:05:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bristollibhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/60247896?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/60247896?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bristollib


2/17

t>

2d-

COMMUNISM,

B,j E. S. BOBEBTSON.

Published by theLIBERTY AND PROPERTY DEFENCE LEAGUE,

4, Westminster Chambers, London, S.W.1883.

UNIVERSITYOF BRISTOLLIBRARY

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:05:12 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

4

{& -t&tZ-Trfgp.^This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:05:12 PM

All use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions


4/17

oo^ynivLTJiTisivi:.

We are all very apt to fancy that if wo only had authority wecould at once and for ever amend many things which appear tous, and doubtless are, very wrong. When we see or hear ofpeople ruined by drink, for instance, we are tempted to thinkthat nothing is needed but to shut up public-houses. Whensome persons are blown up in mines, others crushed in machinery,others poisoned by working in lead, one's first impulse is to cryout that mining and machinery, and, dangerous trades generally,ought to be so regulated as to take the danger out of them, or,at any rate, reduce it to the smallest amount possible. Andwhen we see great uncertainty of employment and suddenfluctuations in wages ; people forced to work for poor pay atrepulsive or unwholesome trades ; the worst paid often doing thehardest kind of work, and thousands barely able to keep bodyand soul together; we are tempted hastily to put all this down tobad laws and to the selfishness of the wealthy and powerful, andto seek a remedy in the reconstruction of society.To do working men and women justice, it is seldom they whoare the first to cry out for regulation of their own trades and ofthe conditions of their own lives. Such cries begin, for the mostpart, with men and women of leisure and kind hearts, but notalways the wisest of heads. As to the attacks upon rich andpowerful people, founded upon the actual inequality and supposedinjustice of the relation between the employer class and theworking class, they are happily not very common or popular inEngland as yet. Such attacks have hitherto mainly originated

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


5/17

4on the Continent, with a small but clever and energetic band ofvisionary thinkers, who have persuaded a considerable number ofworking men in various countries to adopt a plausible scheme orset of schemes for the supposed improvement of the workingman's condition. The plausibility of all these schemes dependsupon the acceptance of certain postulates. We are requhed tobelieve, first, that the existing regime of private property andfree contract is the cause of all the actual inequality and allegedinjustice of things as they are ; and secondly, that things couldbe so altered by an authoritative arrangement as to cause thisinequality and injustice to disappear. Now, my own belief isthat the existing regime of private property and free contract isnot the cause of all, but at most of only a very small part, of theinjustices, and even the inequalities, complained of. In order toprove this, however, it would be necessary to write a formaltreatise on social and economic science, which I have no intentionor opportunity of doing just now. For my present purpose, itwill probably suffice if I accept, for argument's sake, the secondpostulate just mentioned, and try to show, if I can, some of theconsequences it involves.I will begin by pointing out that interferences with liberty andproperty may be demanded on several different kinds of grounds.They may be demanded in order to prevent people from injuringthemselves. This is the usual plea for compulsory abstinencefrom strong drink, for instance. Or they may be demanded inorder to protect working people against dangers directly arisingfrom negligence or greed on the part of employers, such as thedangers of mines, of machinery, and of poisonous or unwholesometrades, against which legislative protection is so often asked andgranted. Or they may be demanded merely on the plea ofconvenience, as in the case of certain regulations of railway andother traffic. Or, finally, they may be demanded for the purposeof equalising people's conditions and warding off poverty. Ipropose to deal, in the first iustance, with the last class of these



6/17

demands, because logically it includes all the rest, and if it ispracticable, all the others are.Let us concede, then, for argument's sake, that a State organisation could be createdor rather that a group of organisationscould be created within each Statewhich should provide forall the physical wants of the community, and regulate all merelymaterial life, so as to exclude poverty to the utmost, and get ridof most of the ills poverty brings in its train. I will go so far asto suppose that all this could be done without a forcible revolution, though the Continental advocates of sehemes of this sort(Collectivists, Socialists, or Communists, as they are called) arecommonly reproached with being anarchists, because they are aptto try to carry their projects into effect by violent and subversivemeans. As a matter of fact, we shall see that the success of suchschemes would be by no means anarchic in effect, but, on thecontrary, would involve an unheard-of tightening of the chains ofauthority. For a Collectivist community could only be kept atwork on certain very rigid conditions, the acceptance of whichwould be a very high price to pay, even for the exclusion ofpoverty.

First, it would be necessary that the State should superintendthe provision of food, lodging, clothing, and all the materialnecessaries of life for every citizen, just as the commissariatdepartment of an army provides for the soldiers. Now, anyonewho knows what the administration of an army commissariat is,knows that even such a limited body as an army is most difficultto provide for. In our own army, as a general rule, the suppliesare inadequate as often as any extraordinary call is made uponthem. In most foreign armies, when the supplies are adequate,they are so much more than adequate as to err on the side oflavishness. The high state of efficiency of the German Army ispurchased at the cost of a crushing tax on German industry.Now, let us suppose that instead of a quarter of a million of adultmen, or even a million, the whole population had to be provided



7/17

6forsome thirty or forty millions, including not only picked andfull-grown men, but the aged, the sick, delicate women, and youngchildren. Surely to superintend the distribution of all thephysical necessaries of life among such a vast and mixed multitude would tax to the utmost the resources of any Stateorganisation. Subdivide and distribute the work how you will,surely it will be all but impossible to guard against the risk of abreakdown at some point of the very complicated machinery!Under the regime of private enterprise and competition (coarseand cruel as some deem it), supply does somehow adjust itselfroughly to demand. But the blunder of a State departmentwould be of necessity irremediable. When the supplies of anarmy fall short there is free industry to fall back upon, and, whenit is deemed necessary to ensure an army against shortness ofsupplies, free industry is permanently overtaxed. But a Com-munistically organised State would either have no such reserve,or would be compelled permanently to over-work its labourers inorder that a reserve might exist.

Secondly, the State, if Communistically organised, must_ofnecessity control all labour, direct its quantity, test its quality,_andcompel its performance. Every man, woman, and child shouldhave his or her daily task set and enforced. Under a regime offree industry and private enterprise', " he that will not workneither shall he eat." In countries like France, where there isno poor law, the cry of the Communistic agitator is not formaintenance while out of work, but for work to do whether theproduce of his work is wanted or no. Our own poor law is astep in the direction of Communism (though not a very longone, and not wholly indefensible), and carries with it theCommunist consequence that work for paupers must not onlybe provided but enforced. A Communistically organised Statewould be a collection of big workhouses. Those who aspire aftersuch an ideal must have learned the lesson of the English workhouse very imperfectly indeed. Otherwise they must needs



8/17

7know that there is a margin of the working class (as there is ofall humanity) whose aim is to get through life doing the verysmallest possible quantity of work.A considerable proportion of our workhouse populationconsists of tramps and " casuals" who are living upon the labourof others, they themselves producing nothing, and doing nomore than they needs must in order that they may be fed at thecost of those who produce. And in this lowest deep there is alower deep : the half criminal or wholly criminal fringe, whichactually prefers the jail to the workhouse, and makes provisionfor a rainy day by breaking windows or street lamps. Whatroom is there for people of this kind in a Collectivist State? Isit not self-evident that a man who will not work of his ownaccord must either be driven to work by the lash, or thrust outto starve on the roadside And, if either of these things has tobe done, wherein lies the advantage of the new regime overthe old?

Thirdly, if the State is to be responsible for proportioningconsumption to resources, the State must control the increase ofthe population. If the State is to provide food, and lodging, andclothing, it must have the power of deciding how many personsare to be fed, lodged, and clothed. This is a matter concerningwhich plain speaking is at once difficult and indispensable.Political economists write about restraints on marriageas if nochildren ever were born out of wedlock. The truth is, thatwherever restraints on marriage have been imposed, illicitunions and illegitimate births have increased. In order tocontrol population by State authority, it would be necessary tobring things into the condition satirised by Shakespeare inMeasure for Measure. The slaves on American plantationswere encouraged to

"breed," because their offspring would sellat a profit. On the contrary, men and women in a State

Communistically organised I will not complete theantithesis. In what way would the subjects of a Collectivist State



9/17

differ from slaves except that they would not be directly subject toa master's capricesAnd what manner of men would they be who should beintrusted with the organisation and control of the labour thusdisciplined The " captains of industry " would have far morepower than the officers of an army; and what would be thecheck on them? We can hardly suppose them appointed bypopular election. That presupposes freedom. We cannotimagine a plantation of slaves choosing the overseer by universalsuffrage. The overseers of the slaves of Communism would haveto be chosen by some process of selection other than a vote ofthe very men and women whom they would have to control, tokeep at work, and to restrain from over-multiplying. Now, thefirst tAvo of these functions are performed, roughly, indeed, andimperfectly, by the Capitalist Employer in a state of freedom.He it is who apportions the work to be done, and decides whoshall do it. He it is who turns the lazy and inefficient workmaninto the street, and promotes the skilful and active labourer.The process by which the capitalist comes to the front is aprocess of natural selection, and is therefore more effective thanany mode of artificial choice could be. The qualities neededfor success in business arc the qualities which the electors of theCollectivist overseer would have to look for, be those electorswho they may. As I said, we can hardly conceive the mass ofthe workmen choosing their own overseers ; but if they did, and ifthey chose them with a view to business efficiency, they wouldchoose very much the same kind of men who now come to thefront as a matter of fact. Now, we have already seen that theofficers of the labour army would really have more formidablepower than the officers of a fighting army. At present, the freelabourer has at least the chance of changing his employer, or thenature of his employ, or if he chooses to play a desperate stake.he can strike. Under Collcctivists all these resources, or nearlyall, would be closed against him. If he struck, he would be



10/17

9treated simply as a deserter in face of the enemy. I am awarethat in writing this I am at issue with the high authority of JohnStuart Mill. But I venture to think that Mr. Mill pitched hisstandard of human unprovability very much too high. When hesays that the drawbacks of Communism (the name Collectivismwas not invented in his day) would not be greater than thedrawbacks of free labour as it now exists, he assumes that freelabourers as they now exist would one and all be easily made fitfor a Collectivist regime. Is this true I venture to think not.Really good workmen might; but it is just the really goodworkmen who do not want Collectivism. I have referredformerly to an incorrigible class of downright idlers and criminals;but they are not the only hinderers with whom the Collectivistreformer would have to reckon. There are among working people,as there are in all ranks of life, a shiftless set of men and women,not vicious, not specially stupid, but simply flabby-minded, andwithout strength of will or purpose. The members of this classnever rise above the station in which they are born, but it takesonly a very slight push to thrust them below it. They are,perhaps, more common, at any rate their ill-luck is more commonlynoted, in the middle class of society, because sharp need keepsthem at work of some sort if they belong to the working class.Every one, however, must know more than one specimen, andthis is precisely the class whose existence causes the cry forCollectivism, and at the same time shipwrecks Collectivistcommunities. All the Communist, Collectivist, or co-operativeschemes that have to any extent succeeded, have done so bygetting rid of persons of this class. I venture to think thatMr. Mill made too light of this circumstance when he expressedhimself so hopefully.It should be remembered that while Collectivism would onlytake from the better workman the -stimulus of emulation, itwould take away from men of the class I have described, thesharp spur of want. Mr. Mill did not, indeed, wholly overlook



11/17

10this difficulty; on the contrary, a great part of his chapter onCommunism is devoted to an attempt at its solution,

or atexplaining it away. But the most that he says amounts to this :that Collectivist work when the community was first started, neednot be more inefficient than it now is, and possibly would bemuch more efficient when education became universal. To this itmay be replied, that Communism or Collectivism will not beneeded when education shall have become sufficiently universaland of fit quality to enable men to make the best of thesystem of private property and free contract. In the meantime,the fact that there is a great deal of inefficient work nowaffords a pretty strong presumption that there would be acertain amount of inefficient work then. Moreover, we mustnow regard the question, not only from the point of view of thegeneral community, which wants commodities in a certainquantity and of certain quality for its consumption (and this is theposition taken up by Mr. Mill in his defence of the principle ofCommunism), but we must regard it also from the point of viewof the classes whose interests would be affected by the practicalapplication of that principle. I have already suggested that forthe idlers and the more orless criminal fringe of the working class,the one possible stimulus i3 coercionhunger on the one hand,and on the other, the prison, or perhaps the lash. And whatof the class which is not criminal, and not exactly idle, but flabby-minded and shiftless What of the man who cannot be'paid hiswages in a public-house, because he cannot resist the temptationto drink What of the man who requires Local Option Actsand Sunday Closing Acts to guard him against his own weakness?Is such a man fit to take part in Collectivist institutions Icannot think so. Such a one seems to me to be just the manwho, relieved from the immediate fear of want, is almost certainto cross the boundary and fall into the idle class, if not into thecriminal class. This, I venture to think, constitutes the dilemmaof Collectivism. Until the criminals, the idlers, and the shiftless



12/17

iiare got rid of, Collectivism must fail, or turn into slavery.When they-are got rid of, Collectivism is no longer needed.Again, how will Collectivism influence the fortunes of thebetter class of working people? Will they be any better off thanthey were Will they not rather be worse I am loth to recurto a somewhat repulsive topic, but I must remind my readersthat the general rules binding on a Collectivist community mustinclude a rule regulating the increase of their numbers. In thepresent system, the skilful, energetic and steady workman is hisown master as regards the maintenance of a large or a smallfamily, or no family at all. Under a regime of Collectivism thismatter must of necessity be ordered for him by superior authority,and he would lose any advantage he may possess over theshiftless and incompetent. Again, one of the ends directlyaimed at by Collectivism is the equalisation of conditions, andthis would by no means stop short at reducing the differencebetween employers and workmen. There would be an attemptto equalise wages. Unskilled labour would plead to be paid, notin proportion to skill, but in proportion to the hardness,unwholesomeness, or repulsiveness of the work; and I for onedo not see how the plea could be answered or rejected. Levellingup would involve levelling down, not only for those that areconventionally termed the rich, but for every set of people whoat present are in any way better off than any other set. Ofcourse, I do not mean that all labour would be paid precisely at thesame rate; but I do say that this would be the tendency. Itwould be very difficult to adjust the proportions of paymentbetween different kinds of work; and while no one would wishto fix for ever the wages of the very poor at the rates that areearned now, it is certain that to tax skilled and educatedworkmen, in order that the unskilled should be better paid,would be bad for the whole public as well as for the better classof workmen.

I think that what I have said above affords very cogent



13/17

12reasons for believing that any attempt to reform society on aCollectivist or Communistic basis would introduce a state ofthings virtually undistinguishable from slavery, and woulddeprive the more skilled and educated sections of the woikingclass of nearly all the advantages they now derive from theirsuperior knowledge, prudence and temperance. Of course, I amquite aware that nobody in England asks for Communism orCollectivism in its crude and unalloyed form. I know, also, thata Continental Collectivist would reply to all I have said here,admitting that ordinary workmen are not now fit for that system,but undertaking to make them fit, and arguing that they can bemade fit only by the actual discipline of the system. To this Irejoin that men can get all that is really good in Collectivism outof an intelligent use of private property and free contract.Collectivism, so far as it is a good thing, is nothing more thanco-operation "writ large." So far as it is not that, it is slavery.Now, we do not want to pass through a period of slavery that wemay attain to an enlarged and efficient system of co-operation;we hope to reach that, and we think we are on the way to it, byrightly understanding and intelligently working the system ofproperty and free contract.

But, I may be asked, what has all this got to do with such Stateregulation of labour, and of the conditions of life, as working menactually do demand, and actually do believe that it is theirinterest to obtain? Granting that they ought to oppose Communism or Collectivism, is that any reason why they shouldoppose compulsory temperance, or inspection of factories, or theexclusion of women from certain trades

To these questions two answers may be given. First, I wouldreply that opposing Collectivism is a reason for opposing Stateregulation, if, and in so far as. State regulation leads toCollectivism; secondly, I would say that every act whereby theState takes upon itself to interfere with liberty or property iscapable of being attacked or defended on grounds peculiar to



14/17

13itself. The attack will usually be founded on the admittedtruth, that liberty is a good thing in itself, and restraint is not agood thing in itself, though under given circumstances it may bethe less of two evils. The defence of any given proceeding maytake the ground that, under existing circumstances, the restraintsought is actually the less of two evilsin which case I shouldadmit the defence to be a legitimate oneor it may take theground that the State, having the power to interfere, has a rightor is subject to a duty of interfering, merely because a grievanceis alleged to exist; in other words, it may take the ground thatit is " the duty of the State to make every one comfortable."This is the kind of reasoning which I say leads to Communismor Collectivism; and, if I am right in my estimate of the consequences of those systems, I am entitled to say that anythingwhich logically and practically leads up to them ought to boopposed.On the other hand, the Liberty and Property Defence LeagueStakes the practical ground that every act of State interventionlias reasons of its own, for and against, subject, however, to thegeneral rule that liberty is in itself to be preferred tojrestraint,and property to confiscation. The burden of proof in every'instance lies on the person who demands restraint or confiscation.Nothing ought to be done for the individual by the State, whichthe individual can do for him or herself. Where groupsvoluntarily combining can obtain certain advantages for themselves, the State ought to leave them as much as possible to reapthe benefit of voluntary combined exertion. No man or womanof full age ought to be coerced under pretext of their own good,but only in order that they may not harm others. In no caseought it to be assumed that the State, or any public authority, isjustified in interfering merely because it has the power tointerfere. In every instance where State aid is invoked, theburden of proof lies upon the party invoking it.The moral I would draw from all I have said above is this :



15/17

14We should be very careful, lest in combating poverty by the aidof authority, we fall into slavery. When we invoke the aid ofauthority to combat evils other than poverty, we should bewarelest we play into the hands of those who would involve us inslavery in their mistaken efforts to put an end to poverty.



16/17

This content downloaded on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:05:12 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


17/17

LIBERTY AND PROPERTY DEFENCE LEAGUE.For resisting Overlegislation, for maintaining Freedom of Contract,and for advocating Individualism as opposed to Socialism,

entirely irrespective of Party Politics.

C 0 II N C I L1 8 8 3-4.The Bight Honoeable the EARL OF WEMYSS, Chairman.The Eight Hon. Loud Bbamweel.Wobdswoetii DoifiSTnoBPE,Esq.The Eight Hon. Eael Eobtescue.Captain Hambee.

Alsager Hay Hill, Esq.

The Eight Hon. Loed Penzutoe.H. D. Pociiin, Esq.Sie C William Siemens, E.E.S.II. C. Stephens, Esq.~W.T. M'C. Tobrens, Esq., M.P.

J. A. Mullens, Esq. | Sie Ed. AY. Watkin, Baet M.P.The Et. lion. Eael oe Pembeoke. ; W. Wells, Esq.Honorary Treasurer: Sie Waltee E. Eaequhab, Bart.

Solicitors:Messrs. IIarbis, Powell & Sieveking, 34, Essex St., Strand,W.C.

Bankers:Messrs. Heebies, Farquiiab & Co., 1G, St. James's Street, S.W.

Auditors:Messrs. Geet, Prideaux & Bookee, 48, Lincolns's Inn Eields, W.C.Secretary: ~W.C. Ceoets.

Persons wishing to join the League are requestedto send theirsubscriptioji (voluntary from one shilling upivards) and address toMessrs Herries, TParquliarnd Co, Bankers, 16, St. James'sStreet, S.W.Particulars and publicationsof the Leaguecan be had rom the Secretary,W. C. C)efts No. 4, WestminsterChambers, ictoriaStreet,London,S. W.

Habmswobui Co.,Pnuter3, i^sistftet^treet,oventGarden.UNIVERSITYOF BRISTOLLIBRARY

Documents

Communism.pdf