The only way of meeting these difficulties, whether under State Socialism or Guild Socialism or Anarchism, seems to be by making it possible for an author to pay for the publication of his book if it is not such as the State or the Guild is willing to print at its own expense.I am aware that this method is contrary to the spirit of Socialism, but I do not see what other way there is of securing freedom.The payment might be made by undertaking to engage for an assigned period in some work of recognizedutility and to hand over such proportion of the earnings as might be necessary.The work undertaken might of course be, as Kropotkin suggests, the manual part of the production of books, but I see no special reason why it should be.It would have to be an absolute rule that no book should be refused, no matter what the nature of its contents might be, if payment for publication were offered at the standard rate.An author who had admirers would be able to secure their help in payment.An unknown author might, it is true, have to suffer a considerable loss of comfort in order to make his payment, but that would give an automatic means of eliminating those whose writing was not the result of any very profound impulse and would be by no means wholly an evil.
Probably some similar method would be desirable as regards the publishing and performing of new music.
What we have been suggesting will, no doubt, be objected to by orthodox Socialists, since they will find something repugnant to their principles in the whole idea of a private person paying to have certain work done.But it is a mistake to be the slave of a system, and every system, if it is applied rigidly, will entail evils which could only be avoided by some concession to the exigencies of special cases.On the whole, a wise form of Socialism might afford infinitely better opportunities for the artist and the man of science than are possible in a capitalist community, but only if the form of Socialism adopted is one which is fitted for this end by means of provisions such as we have been suggesting.
3.Possibility of Appreciation.--This condition is one which is not necessary to all who do creative work, but in the sense in which I mean it the great majority find it very nearly indispensable.I do not mean widespread public recognition, nor that ignorant, half-sincere respect which is commonly accorded to artists who have achieved success.Neither of these serves much purpose.What I mean is rather understanding, and a spontaneous feeling that things of beauty are important.In a thoroughly commercialized society, an artist is respected if he makes money, and because he makes money, but there is no genuine respect for the works of art by which his money has been made.Amillionaire whose fortune has been made in button-hooks or chewing-gum is regarded with awe, but none of this feeling is bestowed on the articles from which his wealth is derived.In a society which measures all things by money the same tends to be true of the artist.If he has become rich he is respected, though of course less than the millionaire, but his pictures or books or music are regarded as the chewing-gum or the button- hooks are regarded, merely as a means to money.In such an atmosphere it is very difficult for the artist to preserve his creative impulse pure: either he is contaminated by his surroundings, or he becomes embittered through lack of appreciation for the object of his endeavor.
