There are two possible answers to that question, and I am sure that very many well-meaning people would make the wrong one.They would answer POVERTY, when they ought to answer SLAVERY.Face to face every day with the shameful contrasts of riches and destitution, high dividends and low wages, and painfully conscious of the futility of trying to adjust the balance by means of charity, private or public, they would answer unhesitatingly that they stand for the ABOLITION OF POVERTY.
Well and good! On that issue every Socialist is with them.But their answer to my question is none the less wrong.
Poverty is the symptom: slavery the disease.The extremes of riches and destitution follow inevitably upon the extremes of license and bondage.The many are not enslaved because they are poor, they are poor because they are enslaved.Yet Socialists have all too often fixed their eyes upon the material misery of the poor without realizing that it rests upon the spiritual degradation of the slave.[59]
[59] ``Self-Government in Industry,'' G.Bell & Sons, 1917, pp.110-111.
I do not think any reasonable person can doubt that the evils of powerin the present system are vastly greater than is necessary, nor that they might be immeasurably diminished by a suitable form of Socialism.A few fortunate people, it is true, are now enabled to live freely on rent or interest, and they could hardly have more liberty under another system.But the great bulk, not only of the very poor, but, of all sections of wage- earners and even of the professional classes, are the slaves of the need for getting money.Almost all are compelled to work so hard that they have little leisure for enjoyment or for pursuits outside their regular occupation.Those who are able to retire in later middle age are bored, because they have not learned how to fill their time when they are at liberty, and such interests as they once had apart from work have dried up.Yet these are the exceptionally fortunate: the majority have to work hard till old age, with the fear of destitution always before them, the richer ones dreading that they will be unable to give their children the education or the medical care that they consider desirable, the poorer ones often not far removed from starvation.And almost all who work have no voice in the direction of their work; throughout the hours of labor they are mere machines carrying out the will of a master.Work is usually done under disagreeable conditions, involving pain and physical hardship.The only motive to work is wages: the very idea that work might be a joy, like the work of the artist, is usually scouted as utterly Utopian.
But by far the greater part of these evils are wholly unnecessary.If the civilized portion of mankind could be induced to desire their own happiness more than another's pain, if they could be induced to work constructively for improvements which they would share with all the world rather than destructively to prevent other classes or nations from stealing a march on them, the whole system by which the world's work is done might be reformed root and branch within a generation.
From the point of view of liberty, what system would be the best? In what direction should we wish the forces of progress to move? From this point of view, neglecting for the moment all other considerations, I have no doubt that the best system would be one not far removed from that advocated by Kropotkin, but rendered more practicable by the adoption of the main principles of Guild Socialism.Since every point can be disputed,I will set down without argument the kind of organization of work that would seem best.
Education should be compulsory up to the age of 16, or perhaps longer; after that, it should be continued or not at the option of the pupil, but remain free (for those who desire it) up to at least the age of 21.When education is finished no one should be COMPELLED to work, and those who choose not to work should receive a bare livelihood, and be left completely free; but probably it would be desirable that there should be a strong public opinion in favor of work, so that only comparatively few should choose idleness.One great advantage of making idleness economically possible is that it would afford a powerful motive for making work not disagreeable; and no community where most work is disagreeable can be said to have found a solution of economic problems.I think it is reasonable to assume that few would choose idleness, in view of the fact that even now at least nine out of ten of those who have (say) 100 pounds a year from investments prefer to increase their income by paid work.
