Britain for the British. Robert Blatchford
Читать онлайн книгу.
METHOD OF THIS BOOK
As to the method of this book, I shall begin by calling attention to some of the evils of the present industrial, social, and political system.
I shall next try to show the sources of those evils, the causes from which they arise.
I shall go on to explain what Socialism is, and what Socialism is not.
I shall answer the principal objections commonly urged against Socialism.
And I shall, in conclusion, point out the chief ways in which I think the reader of this book may help the cause of Socialism if he believes that cause to be just and wise.
FOREWORDS
Years ago, before Socialism had gained a footing in this country, some of us democrats used often to wonder how any working man could be a Tory.
To-day we Socialists are still more puzzled by the fact that the majority of our working men are not Socialists.
How is it that middle class and even wealthy people often accept Socialism more readily than do the workers?
Perhaps it is because the men and women of the middle and upper classes are more in the habit of reading and thinking for themselves, whereas the workers take most of their opinions at second-hand from priests, parsons, journalists, employers, and members of Parliament, whose little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and whose interests lie in bolstering up class privilege by darkening counsel with a multitude of words.
I have been engaged for more than a dozen years in studying political economy and Socialism, and in trying, as a Socialist, pressman, and author, to explain Socialism and to confute the arguments and answer the objections of non-Socialists, and I say, without any hesitation, that I have never yet come across a single argument against practical Socialism that will hold water.
I do not believe that any person of fair intelligence and education, who will take the trouble to study Socialism fairly and thoroughly, will be able to avoid the conclusion that Socialism is just and wise.
I defy any man, of any nation, how learned, eminent, and intellectual soever, to shake the case for practical Socialism, or to refute the reasoning contained in this book.
And now I will address myself to Mr. John Smith, a typical British workman, not yet converted to Socialism.
Dear Mr. Smith, I assume that you are opposed to Socialism, and I assume that you would say that you are opposed to it for one or more of the following reasons:—
1. Because you think Socialism is unjust. 2. Because you think Socialism is unpractical. 3. Because you think that to establish Socialism is not possible.
But I suspect that the real reason for your opposition to Socialism is simply that you do not understand it.
The reasons you generally give for opposing Socialism are reasons suggested to you by pressmen or politicians who know very little about it, or are interested in its rejection.
I am strongly inclined to believe that the Socialism to which you are opposed is not Socialism at all, but only a bogey erected by the enemies of Socialism to scare you away from the genuine Socialism, which it would be so much to your advantage to discover.
Now you would not take your opinions of Trade Unionism from non-Unionists, and why, then, should you take your opinions of Socialism from non-Socialists?
If you will be good enough to read this book you will find out what Socialism really is, and what it is not. If after reading this book you remain opposed to Socialism, I must leave it for some Socialist more able than I to convert you.
When it pleases those who call themselves your "betters" to flatter you, Mr. Smith (which happens oftener at election times than during strikes or lock-outs), you hear that you are a "shrewd, hard-headed, practical man." I hope that is true, whether your "betters" believe it or not.
I am a practical man myself, and shall offer you in this book nothing but hard fact and cold reason.
I assume, Mr. Smith, that you, as a hard-headed, practical man, would rather be well off than badly off, and that with regard to your own earnings you would rather be paid twenty shillings in the pound than five shillings or even nineteen shillings and elevenpence in the pound.
And I assume that as a family man you would rather live in a comfortable and healthy house than in an uncomfortable and unhealthy house; that you would be glad if you could buy beef, bread, gas, coal, water, tea, sugar, clothes, boots, and furniture for less money than you now pay for them; and that you would think it a good thing, and not a bad thing, if your wife had less work and more leisure, fewer worries and more nice dresses, and if your children had more sports, and better health, and better education.
And I assume that you would like to pay lower rents, even if some rich landlord had to keep fewer race-horses.
And I assume that as a humane man you would prefer that other men and women and their children should not suffer if their sufferings could be prevented.
If, then, I assure you that you are paying too much and are being paid too little, and that many other Britons, especially weak women and young children, are enduring much preventible misery; and if I assert, further, that I know of a means whereby you might secure more ease and comfort, and they might secure more justice, you will, surely, as a kind and sensible man, consent to listen to the arguments and statements I propose to place before you.
Suppose a stranger came to tell you where you could get a better house at a lower rent, and suppose your present landlord assured you that the man who offered the information was a fool or a rogue, would you take the landlord's word without investigation? Would it not be more practical and hard-headed to hear first what the bringer of such good news had to tell?
Well, the Socialist brings you better news than that of a lower rent. Will you not hear him? Will you turn your back on him for no better reason than because he is denounced as a fraud by the rich men whose wealth depends upon the continuation of the present system?
Your "betters" tell you that you always display a wise distrust of new ideas. But to reject an idea because it is new is not a proof of shrewdness and good sense; it is a sign of bigotry and ignorance. Trade Unionism was new not so long ago, and was denounced, and is still denounced, by the very same persons who now denounce Socialism. If you find a newspaper or an employer to be wrong when he denounces Trade Unionism, which you do understand, why should you assume that the same authority is right in denouncing Socialism, which you do not understand? You know that in attacking Trade Unionism the employer and the pressman are speaking in their own interest and against yours; why, then, should you be ready to believe that in counselling you against Socialism the same men are speaking in your interest and not in their own?
I ask you, as a practical man, to forget both the Socialist and the non-Socialist, and to consider the case for and against Socialism on its merits. As I said in Merrie England—
Forget that you are a joiner or a spinner, a Catholic or a Freethinker, a Liberal or a Tory, a moderate drinker or a teetotaler, and consider the problem as a man.
If you had to do a problem in arithmetic, or if you were cast adrift in an open boat at sea, you would not set to work as a Wesleyan, or a Liberal Unionist; but you would tackle the sum by the rules of arithmetic, and would row the boat by the strength of your own manhood, and keep a lookout for passing ships under any flag. I ask you, then, Mr. Smith, to hear what I have to say, and to decide by your own judgment whether I am right