322

SOCIALISM  IN  ENGLAND.

carried  on,  and  in  itself  suffices  to  demonstrate  the  utter  futility
and  imbecility  of  the  whole  scheme.  “  It  may  seem,”  adds
Mr.  Bax,  “to  those  accustomed  to  the  present  system,  an  injustice
that  the  clever  doctor,  advocate,  artist,  author,  or  composer
should  be  able  to  absorb  no  more  of  the  good  things  of  life  than
the  man  of  average  ability.  This  is  only  one  of  the  countless
instances  of  custom  perverting  the  mental,  or  rather  moral,
vision  The  natural  and  unperverted  moral  sense  would
seem  to  declare  for  the  very  reverse,  namely,  that  inasmuch  as
the  gifted  man  is  placed  by  nature  on  a  higher  level  than  the
ordinary  man,  ....  he  should  the  rather  forego  a  portion  of  his
own  legitimate  share.  The  utmost,  however,  that  is  contemplated
by  the  Socialist  is  his  being  placed  on  an  equal  economical  footing ­
  with  his  naturally  inferior  brother.”  This  principle  of
remuneration  may  suit  the  unperverted  moral  sense  of  angels
in  Dreamland,  but  it  is  idle  to  pretend  that,  without  a  moral
revolution  far  more  radical  than  the  material  revolution  of  the
Socialists,  such  a  principle  would  promote  Invention,  Imagination, ­
  Science,  Art,  and  Literature,  to  say  nothing  of  material
wealth,  amongst  ordinary  human  beings.
It  appears  that,  after  all,  individual  production  for  profit
will  not  be  prohibited  in  the  Collectivist  state.  “  Prohibitory
laws,”  says  Mr.  Bax,*  “  will  be  quite  unnecessary  when  private
enterprise  ceases  to  be  profitable,  as  it  must  when  the  whole  of
the  means  of  production,  distribution,  and  credit  on  a  large
scale  are  in  the  possession  of  the  people  themselves.”  Accordingly, ­
  he  answers  an  objection  of  M.  Leroy-Beaulieu,
namely,  that  “  under  the  Collectivist  régime  no  one  would  be
allowed  to  mend  his  neighbour’s  trousers  or  shirt  for  a  monetary
consideration,”  by  the  statement  that  “  all  those  who  desire  to
make  a  living  by  an  individualistic  mending  of  shirts  and
trousers  will  be  allowed  full  liberty  to  satisfy  their  aspirations.”
With  characteristic  confidence  he  adds,  “  We  will  not  vouch
for  their  being  much  patronized,  for  the  probability  of  repairs
of  this  character  being  executed  better,  more  rapidly,  and  with
less  expenditure  of  labour  in  the  State  or  communal  factory  is
*  See  his  criticism  of  M.  Leroy-Beaulieu’s  “  Collectivisme  ”  in  To-day
(September,  1884),  pp.  297,  298.