Much the simplest solution, and the only really effective one, is to make every kind of education free up to the age of twenty-one for all boys and girls who desire it.The majority will be tired of education before that age, and will prefer to begin other work sooner; this will lead to a naturalselection of those with strong interests in some pursuit requiring a long training.Among those selected in this way by their own inclinations, probably almost all tho have marked abilities of the kind in question will be included.It is true that there will also be many who have very little ability; the desire to become a painter, for example, is by no means confined to those who can paint.But this degree of waste could well be borne by the community; it would be immeasurably less than that now entailed by the support of the idle rich.Any system which aims at avoiding this kind of waste must entail the far more serious waste of rejecting or spoiling some of the best ability in each generation.The system of free education up to any grade for all who desire it is the only system which is consistent with the principles of liberty, and the only one which gives a reasonable hope of affording full scope for talent.This system is equally compatible with all forms of Socialism and Anarchism.Theoretically, it is compatible with capitalism, but practically it is so opposite in spirit that it would hardly be feasible without a complete economic reconstruction.The fact that Socialism would facilitate it must be reckoned a very powerful argument in favor of change, for the waste of talent at present in the poorer classes of society must be stupendous.
2.Liberty to follow the creative impulse.-- When a man's training has been completed, if he is possessed of really great abilities, he will do his best work if he is completely free to follow his bent, creating what seems good to him, regardless of the judgment of ``experts.'' At present this is only possible for two classes of people: those who have private means, and those who can earn a living by an occupation that does not absorb their whole energies.Under Socialism, there will be no one with private means, and if there is to be no loss as regards art and science, the opportunity which now comes by accident to a few will have to be provided deliberately for a much larger number.The men who have used private means as an opportunity for creative work have been few but important: one might mention Milton, Shelley, Keats and Darwin as examples.Probably none of these would have produced as good work if they had had to earn their livelihood.If Darwin had been a university teacher, he would of course have been dismissed from his post by theinfluence of the clerics on account of his scandalous theories.
Nevertheless, the bulk of the creative work of the world is done at present by men who subsist by some other occupation.Science, and research generally, are usually done in their spare time by men who live by teaching.There is no great objection to this in the case of science, provided the number of hours devoted to teaching is not excessive.It is partly because science and teaching are so easily combined that science is vigorous in the present age.In music, a composer who is also a performer enjoys similar advantages, but one who is not a performer must starve, unless he is rich or willing to pander to the public taste.In the fine arts, as a rule, it is not easy in the modern world either to make a living by really good work or to find a subsidiary profession which leaves enough leisure for creation.This is presumably one reason, though by no means the only one, why art is less flourishing than science.
The bureaucratic State Socialist will have a simple solution for these difficulties.He will appoint a body consisting of the most eminent celebrities in an art or a science, whose business it shall be to judge the work of young men, and to issue licenses to those whose productions find favor in their eyes.A licensed artist shall be considered to have performed his duty to the community by producing works of art.But of course he will have to prove his industry by never failing to produce in reasonable quantities, and his continued ability by never failing to please his eminent judges--until, in the fulness of time, he becomes a judge himself.In this way, the authorities will insure that the artist shall be competent, regular, and obedient to the best traditions of his art.Those who fail to fulfil these conditions will be compelled by the withdrawal of their license to seek some less dubious mode of earning their living.Such will be the ideal of the State Socialist.
In such a world all that makes life tolerable to the lover of beauty would perish.Art springs from a wild and anarchic side of human nature; between the artist and the bureaucrat there must always be a profound mutual antagonism, an age-long battle in which the artist, always outwardly worsted, wins in the end through the gratitude of mankind for the joy that he puts into their lives.If the wild side of human nature is tobe permanently subjected to the orderly rules of the benevolent, uncomprehending bureaucrat, the joy of life will perish out of the earth, and the very impulse to live will gradually wither and die.Better a thousandfold the present world with all its horrors than such a dead mummy of a world.Better Anarchism, with all its risks, than a State Socialism that subjects to rule what must be spontaneous and free if it is to have any value.It is this nightmare that makes artists, and lovers of beauty generally, so often suspicious of Socialism.But there is nothing in the essence of Socialism to make art impossible: only certain forms of Socialism would entail this danger.William Morris was a Socialist, and was a Socialist very largely because he was an artist.And in this he was not irrational.
