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 foot 
ing 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, Imagina 
tion, 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.” Ac 
cordingly, 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.