diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/64882-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/64882-0.txt | 4346 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 4346 deletions
diff --git a/old/64882-0.txt b/old/64882-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 3c827a3..0000000 --- a/old/64882-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4346 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Servile State, by Hilaire Belloc - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Servile State - -Author: Hilaire Belloc - -Release Date: March 20, 2021 [eBook #64882] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: an Anonymous Volunteer - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SERVILE STATE *** -The Servile State - - -By Hilaire Belloc - - -"... If we do not restore the Institution of Property we cannot escape -restoring the Institution of Slavery; there is no third course." - - -T.N. Foulis London & Edinburgh 1912 - - -TO E.S.P. Haynes - -* * * - -Synopsis of the Servile State - -Introduction The Subject of this Book:--It is written to maintain the -thesis that industrial society as we know it will tend towards the -re-establishment of slavery. - ---The sections into which the book will be divided - -Section I -Definitions:--What _wealth_ is and why necessary to man--How -produced--The meaning of the words _Capital_, _Proletariat_, _Property_, -_Means of Production_--The definition of the _Capitalist State_--The -definition of the _/Servile State/_--What it is and what it is not--The -re-establishment of status in the place of contract--That servitude is not -a question of degree but of kind--Summary of these definitions. - -Section II -Our Civilisation was originally Servile:--The Servile -institution in Pagan antiquity--Its fundamental character--A Pagan society -took it for granted--The institution disturbed by the advent of the -Christian Church. - -Section III -How the Servile Institution was for a Time Dissolved:--The -subconscious effect of the Faith in this matter--The main elements of Pagan -economic society--The Villa--The transformation of the agricultural slave -into the Christian _serf_--Next into the Christian _peasant_--The -corresponding erection throughout Christendom of the /_Distributive -State_/--It is nearly complete at the close of the Middle Ages--"It was not -machinery that lost us our freedom, it was the loss of a free mind." - -Section IV -How the Distributive State Failed:--This failure original in -England--The story of the decline from Distributive property to -Capitalism--The economic revolution of the sixteenth century--The -confiscation of monastic land--What might have happened had the State -retained it--As a fact that land is captured by an oligarchy--England is -Capitalist _before_ the advent of the industrial revolution--Therefore -modern industry, proceeding from England, has grown in a Capitalist mould. - -Section V -The Capitalist State in Proportion as It Grows Perfect Grows -Unstable:--It can of its nature be but a transitory phase lying between an -earlier and a later stable state of society--The two internal strains which -render it unstable--_(a)_ The conflict between its social realities and its -moral and legal basis--_(b)_ The insecurity and insufficiency to which it -condemns free citizens--The few possessors can grant or withhold livelihood -from the many non-possessors--Capitalism is so unstable that it dares not -proceed to its own logical conclusion, but tends to restrict competition -among owners, and insecurity and insufficiency among non-owners. - -Section VI -The Stable Solutions of this Instability:--The three stable -social arrangements which alone can take the place of unstable -Capitalism--The _Distributive_ solution, the _Collectivist_ solution, the -_Servile_ solution--The reformer will not openly advocate the Servile -solution--There remain only the Distributive and the Collectivist solution. - -Section VII -Socialism is the Easiest Apparent Solution of the Capitalist -Crux:--A contrast between the reformer making for Distribution and the -reformer making for Socialism (or Collectivism)--The difficulties met by -the first type--He is working against the grain--The second is working with -the grain--Collectivism a natural development of Capitalism--It appeals -both to Capitalist and Proletarian--None the less we shall see that the -Collectivist attempt is doomed to fail and to produce a thing very -different from its object--to wit, the Servile State. - -Section VIII -The Reformers and Reformed Are Alike Making for the Servile -State:--There are two types of reformers working along the line of least -resistance--These are the Socialist and the Practical Man--The Socialist -again is of two kinds, The Humanist and the Statistician--The Humanist -would like both to confiscate from the owners and to establish security and -sufficiency for the non-owners--He is allowed to do the second thing by -establishing servile conditions--He is forbidden to do the first--The -Statistician is quite content so long as he can run and organise the -poor--Both are canalised towards the Servile State and both are shepherded -off their ideal Collectivist State--Meanwhile the great mass, the -proletariat, upon whom the reformers are at work, though retaining the -instinct of ownership, has lost any experience of it and is subject to -private law much more than to the law of the Courts--This is exactly what -happened in the past during the converse change from Slavery to -Freedom--Private Law became stronger than Public at the beginning of the -Dark Ages--The owners welcomed the changes which maintained them in -ownership and yet increased the security of their revenue--to-day the -non-owners will welcome whatever keeps them a wage-earning class but -increases their wages and their security without insisting on the -expropriation of the owners. - -Appendix on "Buying-Out" An Appendix showing that the Collectivist proposal -to "Buy-Out" the Capitalist in lieu of expropriating him is vain. - -Section IX The Servile State Has Begun:--The manifestation of the Servile -State in law or proposals of law will fall into two sorts--(a) Laws or -proposals of law compelling the proletariat to work--(b) Financial -operations riveting the grip of capitalists more strongly upon society--As -to (a), we find it /already/ at work in measures such as the Insurance Act -and proposals such as Compulsory Arbitration, the enforcement of Trades -Union bargains and the erection of "Labour Colonies," etc., for the -"unemployable"--As to the second, we find that so-called "Municipal" or -"Socialist" experiments in acquiring the means of production have /already/ -increased and are continually increasing the dependence of society upon the -Capitalist. - -Conclusion - -* * * - -The Servile State - -* * * - -Introduction -The Subject of This Book - - -This book is written to maintain and prove the following truth:-- - -That our free modern society in which the means of production are owned by -a few being necessarily in unstable equilibrium, it is tending to reach a -condition of stable equilibrium /by the establishment of compulsory labour -legally enforcible upon those who do not own the means of production for -the advantage of those who do/. With this principle of compulsion applied -against the non-owners there must also come a difference in their status; -and in the eyes of society and of its positive law men will be divided into -two sets: the first economically free and politically free, possessed of -the means of production, and securely confirmed in that possession; the -second economically unfree and politically unfree, but at first secured by -their very lack of freedom in certain necessaries of life and in a minimum -of well-being beneath which they shall not fall. - -Society having reached such a condition would be released from its present -internal strains and would have taken on a form which would be stable: that -is, capable of being indefinitely prolonged without change. In it would be -resolved the various factors of instability which increasingly disturb that -form of society called _Capitalist_, and men would be satisfied to accept, -and to continue in, such a settlement. - -To such a stable society I shall give, for reasons which will be described -in the next section, the title of THE SERVILE STATE. - -I shall not undertake to judge whether this approaching organisation of our -modern society be good or evil. I shall concern myself only with showing -the necessary tendency towards it which has long existed and the recent -social provisions which show that it has actually begun. - -This new state will be acceptable to those who desire consciously or by -implication the re-establishment among us of a difference of status between -possessor and non-possessor: it will be distasteful to those who regard -such a distinction with ill favour or with dread. - -My business will not be to enter into the discussion between these two -types of modern thinkers, but to point out to each and to both that that -which the one favours and the other would fly is upon them. - -I shall prove my thesis in particular from the case of the industrial -society of Great Britain, including that small, alien, and exceptional -corner of Ireland, which suffers or enjoys industrial conditions to-day. - -I shall divide the matter thus:-- - -(1) I shall lay down certain definitions. - -(2) Next, I shall describe the institution of slavery and /The Servile -State/ of which it is the basis, as these were in the ancient world. I -shall then: - -(3) Sketch very briefly the process whereby that age-long institution of -slavery was slowly dissolved during the Christian centuries, and whereby -the resulting medieval system, based upon highly divided property in the -means of production, was - -(4) wrecked in certain areas of Europe as it approached completion, and had -substituted for it, in practice though not in legal theory, a society based -upon /Capitalism/. - -(5) Next, I shall show how Capitalism was of its nature unstable, because -its social realities were in conflict with all existing or possible systems -of law, and because its effects in denying _sufficiency_ and _security_ -were intolerable to men; how being thus _unstable_, it consequently -presented a _problem_ which demanded a solution: to wit, the establishment -of some stable form of society whose law and social practice should -correspond, and whose economic results, by providing _sufficiency_ and -_security_, should be tolerable to human nature. - -(6) I shall next present the only three possible solutions:-- - -(_a_) Collectivism, or the placing of the means of production in the hands -of the political officers of the community. - -(_b_) Property, or the re-establishment of a Distributive State in which -the mass of citizens should severally own the means of production. - -(_c_) Slavery, or a Servile State in which those who do not own the means -of production shall be legally compelled to work for those who do, and -shall receive in exchange a security of livelihood. - -Now, seeing the distaste which the remains of our long Christian tradition -has bred in us for directly advocating the third solution and boldly -supporting the re-establishment of slavery, the first two alone are open to -reformers: (1) a reaction towards a condition of well-divided property or -the _Distributive State_; (2) an attempt to achieve the ideal _Collectivist -State_. - -It can easily be shown that this second solution appeals most naturally and -easily to a society already Capitalist on account of the difficulty which -such a society has to discover the energy, the will, and the vision -requisite for the first solution. - -(7) I shall next proceed to show how the pursuit of this ideal Collectivist -State which is bred of Capitalism leads men acting upon a Capitalist -society not towards the Collectivist State nor anything like it, but to -that third utterly different thing--the _Servile State_. - -To this eighth section I shall add an appendix showing how the attempt to -achieve Collectivism gradually by public purchase is based upon an -illusion. - -(8) Recognising that theoretical argument of this kind, though -intellectually convincing, is not sufficient to the establishment of my -thesis, I shall conclude by giving examples from modern English -legislation, which examples prove that the Servile State is actually upon -us. - -Such is the scheme I design for this book. - - - - -Section One -Definitions - - -Man, like every other organism, can only live by the transformation of his -environment to his own use. He must transform his environment from a -condition where it is less to a condition where it is more subservient to -his needs. - -That special, conscious, and intelligent transformation of his environment -which is peculiar to the peculiar intelligence and creative faculty of man -we call the _Production of Wealth_. - -_Wealth_ is matter which has been consciously and intelligently transformed -from a condition in which it is less to a condition in which it is more -serviceable to a human need. - -Without _Wealth_ man cannot exist. The production of it is a necessity to -him, and though it proceeds from the more to the less necessary, and even -to those forms of production which we call luxuries, yet in any given human -society there is a certain _kind_ and a certain _amount_ of wealth without -which human life cannot be lived: as, for instance, in England to-day, -certain forms of cooked and elaborately prepared food, clothing, warmth, -and habitation. - -Therefore, to control the production of wealth is to control human life -itself. To refuse man the opportunity for the production of wealth is to -refuse him the opportunity for life; and, in general, the way in which the -production of wealth is by law permitted is the only way in which the -citizens can legally exist. - -Wealth can only be produced by the application of human energy, mental and -physical, to the forces of nature around us, and to the material which -those forces inform. - -This human energy so applicable to the material world and its forces we -will call _Labour_. As for that material and those natural forces, we will -call them, for the sake of shortness, by the narrow, but conventionally -accepted, term _Land_. - -It would seem, therefore, that all problems connected with the production -of wealth, and all discussion thereupon, involve but two principal original -factors, to wit, _Labour_ and _Land_, But it so happens that the conscious, -artificial, and intelligent action of man upon nature, corresponding to his -peculiar character compared with other created beings, introduces a third -factor of the utmost importance. - -Man proceeds to create wealth by ingenious methods of varying and often -increasing complexity, and aids himself by the construction of -_implements_. These soon become in each new department of the production as -truly necessary to that production as _labour_ and _land_. Further, any -process of production takes a certain time; during that time the producer -must be fed, and clothed, and housed, and the rest of it. There must -therefore be an _accumulation of wealth_ created in the past, and reserved -with the object of maintaining labour during its effort to produce for the -future. - -Whether it be the making of an instrument or tool, or the setting aside of -a store of provisions, _labour_ applied to _land_ for either purpose is not -producing wealth for immediate consumption. It is setting aside and -reserving somewhat, and that _somewhat_ is always necessary in varying -proportions according to the simplicity or complexity of the economic -society to the production of wealth. - -To such wealth reserved and set aside for the purposes of future -production, and not for immediate consumption, whether it be in the form of -instruments and tools, or in the form of stores for the maintenance of -labour during the process of production, we give the name of _Capital_. - -There are thus three factors in the production of all human wealth, which -we may conventionally term _Land_, _Capital_, and _Labour_. - -When we talk of the _Means of Production_ we signify land and capital -combined. Thus, when we say that a man is "dispossessed of the means of -production," or cannot produce wealth save by the leave of another who -"possesses the means of production," we mean that he is the master only of -his labour and has no control, in any useful amount, over either capital, -or land, or both combined. - -A man politically free, that is, one who enjoys the right before the law to -exercise his energies when he pleases (or not at all if he does not so -please), but not possessed by legal right of control over any useful amount -of the means of production, we call _proletarian_, and any considerable -class composed of such men we call a _proletariat_. - -_Property_ is a term used for that arrangement in society whereby the -control of land and of wealth made from land, including therefore all the -means of production, is vested in some person or corporation. Thus we may -say of a building, including the land upon which it stands, that it is the -"property" of such and such a citizen, or family, or college, or of the -State, meaning that those who "own" such property are guaranteed by the -laws in the right to use it or withhold it from use. _Private property_ -signifies such wealth (including the means of production) as may, by the -arrangements of society, be in the control of persons or corporations -_other_ than the political bodies of which these persons or corporations -are in another aspect members. What distinguishes private property is not -that the possessor thereof is less than the State, or is only a part of the -State (for were that so we should talk of municipal property as private -property), but rather that the owner may exercise his control over it to -his own advantage, and not as a trustee for society, nor in the hierarchy -of political institutions. Thus Mr Jones is a citizen of Manchester, but he -does not own his private property as a citizen of Manchester, he owns it as -Mr Jones, whereas, if the house next to his own be owned by the Manchester -municipality, they own it only because they are a political body standing -for the whole community of the town. Mr Jones might move to Glasgow and -still own his property in Manchester, but the municipality of Manchester -can only own its property in connection with the corporate political life -of the town. - -An ideal society in which the means of production should be in the hands of -the political officers of the community we call _Collectivist_, or more -generally _Socialist_.[1] - -A society in which private property in land and capital, that is, the -ownership and therefore the control of the means of production, is confined -to some number of free citizens not large enough to determine the social -mass of the State, while the rest have not such property and are therefore -proletarian, we call _Capitalist_; and the method by which wealth is -produced in such a society can only be the application of labour, the -determining mass of which must necessarily be proletarian, to land and -capital, in such fashion that, of the total wealth produced, the -Proletariat which labours shall only receive a portion. - -The two marks, then, defining the Capitalist State are: (1) That the -citizens thereof are politically free: _i.e._ can use or withhold at will -their possessions or their labour, but are also (2) divided into capitalist -and proletarian in such proportions that the State as a whole is not -characterised by the institution of ownership among free citizens, but by -the restriction of ownership to a section markedly less than the whole, or -even to a small minority. Such a _Capitalist State_ is essentially divided -into two classes of free citizens, the one capitalist or owning, the other -propertyless or proletarian. - -My last definition concerns the Servile State itself, and since the idea is -both somewhat novel and also the subject of this book, I will not only -establish but expand its definition. - -The definition of the Servile State is as follows:-- - -"_That arrangement of society in which so considerable a number of the -families and individuals are constrained by positive law to labour for the -advantage of other families and individuals as to stamp the whole community -with the mark of such labour we call_ /The Servile State/." - -Note first certain negative limitations in the above which must be clearly -seized if we are not to lose clear thinking in a fog of metaphor and -rhetoric. - -That society is not servile in which men are intelligently constrained to -labour by enthusiasm, by a religious tenet, or indirectly from fear of -destitution, or directly from love of gain, or from the common sense which -teaches them that by their labour they may increase their well-being. - -A clear boundary exists between the servile and the non-servile condition -of labour, and the conditions upon either side of that boundary utterly -differ one from another, Where there is _compulsion_ applicable by -_positive law_ to men of a certain _status_, and such compulsion enforced -in the last resort by the powers at the disposal of the State, there is the -institution of _Slavery_; and if that institution be sufficiently expanded -the whole State may be said to repose upon a servile basis, and is a -Servile State. - -Where such formal, legal status is absent the conditions are not servile; -and the difference between servitude and freedom, appreciable in a thousand -details of actual life, is most glaring in this: that the free man can -refuse his labour and use that refusal as an instrument wherewith to -_bargain_; while the slave has no such instrument or power to bargain at -all, but is dependent for his well-being upon the custom of society, backed -by the regulation of such of its laws as may protect and guarantee the -slave. - -Next, let it be observed that the State is not servile because the mere -institution of slavery is to be discovered somewhere within its confines. -The State is only servile when so considerable a body of forced labour is -affected by the compulsion of positive law as to give a character to the -whole community. - -Similarly, that State is not servile in which _all_ citizens are liable to -submit their energies to the compulsion of positive law, and must labour at -the discretion of State officials. By loose metaphor and for rhetorical -purposes men who dislike Collectivism (for instance) or the discipline of a -regiment will talk of the "servile" conditions of such organisations. But -for the purposes of strict definition and clear thinking it is essential to -remember that a servile condition only exists by contrast with a free -condition. The servile condition is present in society only when there is -also present the free citizen for whose benefit the slave works under the -compulsion of positive law. - -Again, it should be noted that this word "servile" in no way connotes the -worst, nor even necessarily a bad, arrangement of society, This point is so -clear that it should hardly delay us; but a confusion between the -rhetorical and the precise use of the word servile I have discovered to -embarrass public discussion of the matter so much that I must once more -emphasise what should be self-evident. - -The discussion as to whether the institution of slavery be a good or a bad -one, or be relatively better or worse than other alternative institutions, -has nothing whatever to do with the exact definition of that institution. -Thus Monarchy consists in throwing the responsibility for the direction of -society upon an individual. One can imagine some Roman of the first century -praising the new Imperial power, but through a muddle-headed tradition -against "kings" swearing that he would never tolerate a "monarchy." Such a -fellow would have been a very futile critic of public affairs under Trajan, -but no more futile than a man who swears that nothing shall make him a -"slave," though well prepared to accept laws that compel him to labour -without his consent, under the force of public law, and upon terms dictated -by others. - -Many would argue that a man so compelled to labour, guaranteed against -insecurity and against insufficiency of food, housing and clothing, -promised subsistence for his old age, and a similar set of advantages for -his posterity, would be a great deal better off than a free man lacking all -these things. But the argument does not affect the definition attaching to -the word servile. A devout Christian of blameless life drifting upon an -ice-flow in the Arctic night, without food or any prospect of succour, is -not so comfortably circumstanced as the Khedive of Egypt; but it would be -folly in establishing the definition of the words "Christian" and -"Mahommedan" to bring this contrast into account. - -We must then, throughout this inquiry, keep strictly to the economic aspect -of the case. Only when that is established and when the modern tendency to -the re-establishment of slavery is clear, are we free to discuss the -advantages and disadvantages of the revolution through which we are -passing. - -It must further be grasped that the essential mark of the Servile -Institution does not depend upon the ownership of the slave by a particular -master. That the institution of slavery tends to that form under the -various forces composing human nature and human society is probable enough. -That if or when slavery were re-established in England a particular man -would in time be found the slave not of Capitalism in general but of, say, -the Shell Oil Trust in particular, is a very likely development; and we -know that in societies where the institution was of immemorial antiquity -such direct possession of the slave by the free man or corporation of free -men had come to be the rule. But my point is that such a mark is not -essential to the character of slavery. As an initial phase in the -institution of slavery, or even as a permanent phase marking society for an -indefinite time, it is perfectly easy to conceive of a whole class rendered -servile by positive law, and compelled by such law to labour for the -advantage of another non-servile free class, without any direct act of -possession permitted to one man over the person of another. - -The final contrast thus established between slave and free might be -maintained by the State guaranteeing to the _un-free_, security in their -subsistence, to the free, security in their property and profits, rent and -interest. What would mark the slave in such a society would be his -belonging to that set or status which was compelled by no matter what -definition to labour, and was thus cut off from the other set or status not -compelled to labour, but free to labour or not as it willed. - -Again, the Servile State would certainly exist even though a man, being -only compelled to labour during a portion of his time, were free to bargain -and even to accumulate in his "free" time. The old lawyers used to -distinguish between a serf "in gross" and a serf "regardant." A serf "in -gross" was one who was a serf at all times and places, and not in respect -to a particular lord. A serf "regardant" was a serf only in his bondage to -serve a particular lord. He was free as against other men. And one might -perfectly well have slaves who were only slaves "regardant" to a particular -type of employment during particular hours. But they would be slaves none -the less, and if their hours were many and their class numerous, the State -which they supported would be a Servile State. - -Lastly, let it be remembered that the servile condition remains as truly an -institution of the State when it attaches permanently and irrevocably at -any one time to a particular set of human beings as when it attaches to a -particular class throughout their lives. Thus the laws of Paganism -permitted the slave to be enfranchised by his master: it further permitted -children or prisoners to be sold into slavery. The Servile Institution, -though perpetually changing in the elements of its composition, was still -an unchanging factor in the State. Similarly, though the State should only -subject to slavery those who had less than a certain income, while leaving -men free by inheritance or otherwise to pass out of, and by loss to pass -into, the slave class, that slave class, though fluctuating as to its -composition, would still permanently exist. - -Thus, if the modern industrial State shall make a law by which servile -conditions shall not attach to those capable of earning more than a certain -sum by their own labour, but shall attach to those who earn less than this -sum; or if the modern industrial State defines manual labour in a -particular fashion, renders it compulsory during a fixed time for those who -undertake it, but leaves them free to turn later to other occupations if -they choose, undoubtedly such distinctions, though they attach to -conditions and not to individuals, establish the Servile Institution. - -Some considerable number must be manual workers by definition, and while -they were so defined would be slaves. Here again the composition of the -Servile class would fluctuate, but the class would be permanent and large -enough to stamp all society. I need not insist upon the practical effect: -that such a class, once established, tends to be fixed in the great -majority of those which make it up, and that the individuals entering or -leaving it tend to become few compared to the whole mass. - -There is one last point to be considered in this definition. - -It is this:-- - -Since, in the nature of things, a free society must enforce a contract (a -free society consisting in nothing else but the enforcement of free -contracts), how far can that be called a Servile condition which is the -result of contract nominally or really free? In other words, is not a -contract to labour, however freely entered into, servile of its nature when -enforced by the State? - -For instance, I have no food or clothing, nor do I possess the means of -production whereby I can produce any wealth in exchange for such. I am so -circumstanced that an owner of the Means of Production will not allow me -access to those Means unless I sign a contract to serve him for a week at a -wage of bare subsistence. Does the State in enforcing that contract make me -for that week a slave? - -Obviously not. For the institution of Slavery presupposes a certain -attitude of mind in the free man and in the slave, a habit of living in -either, and the stamp of both those habits upon society. No such effects -are produced by a contract enforceable by the length of one week. The -duration of human life is such, and the prospect of posterity, that the -fulfilling of such a contract in no way wounds the senses of liberty and of -choice. - -What of a month, a year, ten years, a lifetime? Suppose an extreme case, -and a destitute man to sign a contract binding him and all his children who -were minors to work for a bare subsistence until his own death, or the -attainment of majority of the children, whichever event might happen -latest; would the State in forcing that contract be making the man a slave? - -As undoubtedly as it would not be making him a slave in the first case, it -would be making him a slave in the second. - -One can only say to ancient sophistical difficulties of this kind, that the -sense of men establishes for itself the true limits of any object, as of -freedom. What freedom is, or is not, in so far as mere measure of time is -concerned (though of course much else than time enters in), human habit -determines; but the enforcing of a contract of service certainly or -probably leaving a choice after its expiration is consonant with freedom. -The enforcement of a contract probably binding one's whole life is not -consonant with freedom. One binding to service a man's natural heirs is -intolerable to freedom. - -Consider another converse point. A man binds himself to work for life and -his children after him so far as the law may permit him to bind them in a -particular society, but that not for a bare subsistence, but for so large a -wage that he will be wealthy in a few years, and his posterity, when the -contract is completed, wealthier still. Does the State in forcing such a -contract make the fortunate employee a slave? No. For it is in the essence -of slavery that subsistence or little more than subsistence should be -guaranteed to the slave. Slavery exists in order that the Free should -benefit by its existence, and connotes a condition in which the men -subjected to it may demand secure existence, but little more. - -If anyone were to draw an exact line, and to say that a life-contract -enforceable by law was slavery at so many shillings a week, but ceased to -be slavery after that margin, his effort would be folly. None the less, -there is a standard of subsistence in any one society, the guarantee of -which (or little more) under an obligation to labour by compulsion is -slavery, while the guarantee of very much more is not slavery. - -This verbal jugglery might be continued. It is a type of verbal difficulty -apparent in every inquiry open to the professional disputant, but of no -effect upon the mind of the honest inquirer whose business is not dialectic -but truth. - -It is always possible by establishing a cross-section in a set of -definitions to pose the unanswerable difficulty of degree, but that will -never affect the realities of discussion. We know, for instance, what is -meant by torture when it exists in a code of laws, and when it is -forbidden. No imaginary difficulties of degree between pulling a man's hair -and scalping him, between warming him and burning him alive, will disturb a -reformer whose business it is to expunge torture from some penal code. - -In the same way we know what is and what is not compulsory labour, what is -and what is not the Servile Condition. Its test is, I repeat, the -withdrawal from a man of his free choice to labour or not to labour, here -or there, for such and such an object; and the compelling of him by -positive law to labour for the advantage of others who do not fall under -the same compulsion. - -Where you have _that_, you have slavery: with all the manifold, spiritual, -and political results of that ancient institution. - -Where you have slavery affecting a class of such considerable size as to -mark and determine the character of the State, there you have the Servile -State. - -* * * * * - -To sum up, then:--The /Servile State/ is that in which we find so -considerable a body of families and individuals distinguished from _free -citizens_ by the mark of compulsory labour as to stamp a general character -upon society, and all the chief characters, good or evil, attaching to the -institution of slavery will be found permeating such a State, whether the -slaves be directly and personally attached to their masters, only -indirectly attached through the medium of the State, or attached in a third -manner through their subservience to corporations or to particular -industries. The slave so compelled to labour will be one dispossessed of -the means of production, and compelled by law to labour for the advantage -of all or any who are possessed thereof. And the distinguishing mark of the -slave proceeds from the special action upon him of a positive law which -first separates one body of men, the less-free, from another, the more -free, in the function of contract within the general body of the community. - -Now, from a purely Servile conception of production and of the arrangement -of society we Europeans sprang. The Immemorial past of Europe is a Servile -past. During some centuries which the Church raised, permeated, and -constructed, Europe was gradually released or divorced from this immemorial -and fundamental conception of slavery; to that conception, to that -institution, our Industrial or Capitalist society is now upon its return. -We are re-establishing the slave. - -* * * * * - -Before proceeding to the proof of this, I shall, in the next few pages, -digress to sketch very briefly the process whereby the old Pagan slavery -was transformed into a free society some centuries ago. I shall then -outline the further process whereby the new non-servile society was wrecked -at the Reformation in certain areas of Europe, and particularly in England. -There was gradually produced in its stead the transitory phase of society -(now nearing its end) called generally _Capitalism_ or the _Capitalist -State_. - -Such a digression, being purely historical, is not logically necessary to a -consideration of our subject, but it is of great value to the reader, -because the knowledge of how, in reality and in the concrete, things have -moved better enables us to understand the logical process whereby they tend -towards a particular goal in the future. - -One could prove the tendency towards the Servile State in England to-day to -a man who knew nothing of the past of Europe; but that tendency will seem -to him far more reasonably probable, far more a matter of experience and -less a matter of mere deduction, when he knows what our society once was, -and how it changed into what we know to-day. - - - - -Section Two -Our Civilisation Was Originally Servile - - -In no matter what field of the European past we make our research, we find, -from two thousand years ago upwards, one fundamental institution whereupon -the whole of society reposes; that fundamental institution is Slavery. - -There is here no distinction between the highly civilised City-State of the -Mediterranean, with its letters, its plastic art, and its code of laws, -with all that makes a civilisation--and this stretching back far beyond any -surviving record,--there is here no distinction between that civilised body -and the Northern and Western societies of the Celtic tribes, or of the -little known hordes that wandered in the Germanies. _All_ indifferently -reposed upon slavery. It was a fundamental conception of society. It was -everywhere present, nowhere disputed. - -There _is_ a distinction (or would appear to be) between Europeans and -Asiatics in this matter. The religion and morals of the one so differed in -their very origin from those of the other that every social institution was -touched by the contrast--and Slavery among the rest. - -But with that we need not concern ourselves. My point is that our European -ancestry, those men from whom we are descended and whose blood runs with -little admixture in our veins, took slavery for granted, made of it the -economic pivot upon which the production of wealth should turn, and never -doubted but that it was normal to all human society. - -It is a matter of capital importance to seize this. - -An arrangement of such a sort would not have endured without intermission -(and indeed without question) for many centuries, nor have been found -emerging fully grown from that vast space of unrecorded time during which -barbarism and civilisation flourished side by side in Europe, had there not -been something in it, good or evil, native to our blood. - -There was no question in those ancient societies from which we spring of -making subject races into slaves by the might of conquering races. All that -is the guess-work of the universities. Not only is there no proof of it, -rather all the existing proof is the other way. The Greek had a Greek -slave, the Latin a Latin slave, the German a German slave, the Celt a -Celtic slave. The theory that "superior races" invaded a land, either drove -out the original inhabitants or reduced them to slavery, is one which has -no argument either from our present knowledge of man's mind or from -recorded evidence. Indeed, the most striking feature of that Servile Basis -upon which Paganism reposed was the human equality recognised between -master and slave. The master might kill the slave, but both were of one -race and each was human to the other. - -This spiritual value was not, as a further pernicious piece of guess-work -would dream, a "growth" or a "progress." The doctrine of human equality was -inherent in the very stuff of antiquity, as it is inherent in those -societies which have not lost tradition. - -We may presume that the barbarian of the North would grasp the great truth -with less facility than the civilised man of the Mediterranean, because -barbarism everywhere shows a retrogression in intellectual power; but the -proof that the Servile Institution was a social arrangement rather than a -distinction of type is patent from the coincidence everywhere of -Emancipation with Slavery. Pagan Europe not only thought the existence of -Slaves a natural necessity to society, but equally thought that upon giving -a Slave his freedom the enfranchised man would naturally step, though -perhaps after the interval of some lineage, into the ranks of free society. -Great poets and great artists, statesmen and soldiers were little troubled -by the memory of a servile ancestry. - -On the other hand, there was a perpetual recruitment of the Servile -Institution, just as there was a perpetual emancipation from it, proceeding -year after year; and the natural or normal method of recruitment is most -clearly apparent to us in the simple and barbaric societies which the -observation of contemporary civilised Pagans enables us to judge. - -It was poverty that made the slave. - -Prisoners of war taken in set combat afforded one mode of recruitment, and -there was also the raiding of men by pirates in the outer lands and the -selling of them in the slave markets of the South. But at once the cause of -the recruitment and the permanent support of the institution of slavery was -the indigence of the man who sold himself into slavery, _or was born into -it_; for it was a rule of Pagan Slavery that the slave bred the slave, and -that even if one of the parents were free the offspring was a slave. - -The society of antiquity, therefore, was normally divided (as must at last -be the society of any servile state) into clearly marked sections: there -was upon the one hand the citizen who had a voice in the conduct of the -State, who would often labour--but labour of his own free will--and who was -normally possessed of property; upon the other hand, there was a mass -dispossessed of the means of production and compelled by positive law to -labour at command. - -It is true that in the further developments of society the accumulation of -private savings by a slave was tolerated and that slaves so favoured did -sometimes purchase their freedom. - -It is further true that in the confusion of the last generations of -Paganism there arose in some of the great cities a considerable class of -men who, though free, were dispossessed of the means of production. But -these last never existed in a sufficient proportion to stamp the whole -State of society with a character drawn from their proletarian -circumstance. To the end the Pagan world remained a world of free -proprietors possessed, in various degrees, of the land and of the capital -whereby wealth may be produced, and applying to that land and capital for -the purpose of producing wealth, _compulsory_ labour. - -Certain features in that original Servile State from which we all spring -should be carefully noted by way of conclusion. - -First, though all nowadays contrast slavery with freedom to the advantage -of the latter, yet men then accepted slavery freely as an alternative to -indigence. - -Secondly (and this is most important for our judgment of the Servile -Institution as a whole, and of the chances of its return), in all those -centuries we find no organised effort, nor (what is still more significant) -do we find any _complaint of conscience_ against the institution which -condemned the bulk of human beings to forced labour. - -Slaves may be found in the literary exercises of the time bewailing their -lot and joking about it; some philosophers will complain that an ideal -society should contain no slaves; others will excuse the establishment of -slavery upon this plea or that, while granting that it offends the dignity -of man. The greater part will argue of the State that it is necessarily -Servile. But no one, slave or free, dreams of abolishing or even of -changing the thing. You have no martyrs for the case of "freedom" as -against "slavery." The so-called Servile wars are the resistance on the -part of escaped slaves to any attempt at recapture, but they are not -accompanied by an accepted affirmation that servitude is an intolerable -thing; nor is that note struck at all from the unknown beginnings to the -Catholic endings of the Pagan world. Slavery is irksome, undignified, -woeful; but it is, to them, of the nature of things. - -You may say, to be brief, that this arrangement of society was the very air -which Pagan Antiquity breathed. - -Its great works, its leisure and its domestic life, its humour, its -reserves of power, all depend upon the fact that its society was that of -the Servile State. - -Men were happy in that arrangement, or, at least, as happy as men ever are. - -The attempt to escape by a personal effort, whether of thrift, of -adventure, or of flattery to a master, from the Servile condition had never -even so much of driving power behind it as the attempt many show to-day to -escape from the rank of wage-earners to those of employers. Servitude did -not seem a hell into which a man would rather die than sink, or out of -which at any sacrifice whatsoever a man would raise himself. It was a -condition accepted by those who suffered it as much as by those who enjoyed -it, and a perfectly necessary part of all that men did and thought. - -You find no barbarian from some free place astonished at the institution of -Slavery; you find no Slave pointing to a society in which Slavery was -unknown as towards a happier land. To our ancestors not only for those few -centuries during which we have record of their actions, but apparently -during an illimitable past, the division of society into those who must -work under compulsion and those who would benefit by their labour was the -very plan of the State apart from which they could hardly think of society -as existing at all. - -Let all this be clearly grasped. It is fundamental to an understanding of -the problem before us. Slavery is no novel experience in the history of -Europe; nor is one suffering an odd dream when one talks of Slavery as -acceptable to European men. Slavery was of the very stuff of Europe for -thousands upon thousands of years, until Europe engaged upon that -considerable moral experiment called _The Faith_, which many believe to be -now accomplished and discarded, and in the failure of which it would seem -that the old and primary institution of Slavery must return. - -For there came upon us Europeans after all those centuries, and centuries -of a settled social order which was erected upon Slavery as upon a sure -foundation, the experiment called the Christian Church. - -Among the by-products of this experiment, very slowly emerging from the old -Pagan world, and not long completed before Christendom itself suffered a -shipwreck, was the exceedingly gradual transformation of the Servile State -into something other: a society of owners. And how that something other did -proceed from the Pagan Servile State I will next explain. - - - - -Section Three -How the Servile Institution Was for a Time Dissolved - - -The process by which slavery disappeared among Christian men, though very -lengthy in its development (it covered close upon a thousand years), and -though exceedingly complicated in its detail, may be easily and briefly -grasped in its main lines. - -Let it first be clearly understood that the vast revolution through which -the European mind passed bet ween the first and the fourth centuries (that -revolution which is often termed the Conversion of the World to -Christianity, but which should for purposes of historical accuracy be -called the Growth of the Church) included no attack upon the Servile -Institution. - -No dogma of the Church pronounced Slavery to be immoral, or the sale and -purchase of men to be a sin, or the imposition of compulsory labour upon a -Christian to be a contravention of any human right. - -The emancipation of Slaves was indeed regarded as a good work by the -Faithful: but so was it regarded by the Pagan. It was, on the face of it, a -service rendered to one's fellowmen. The sale of Christians to Pagan -masters was abhorrent to the later empire of the Barbarian Invasions, not -because slavery in itself was condemned, but because it was a sort of -treason to civilisation to force men away from Civilisation to Barbarism. -In general you will discover no pronouncement against slavery as an -institution, nor any moral definition attacking it, throughout all those -early Christian centuries during which it none the less effectively -disappears. - -The form of its disappearance is well worth noting. It begins with the -establishment as the fundamental unit of production in Western Europe of -those great landed estates, commonly lying in the hands of a single -proprietor, and generally known as /Villae/. - -There were, of course, many other forms of human agglomeration: small -peasant farms owned in absolute proprietorship by their petty masters; -groups of free men associated in what was called a Vicus; manufactories in -which groups of slaves were industrially organised to the profit of their -master; and, governing the regions around them, the scheme of Roman towns. - -But of all these the Villa the dominating type; and as society passed from -the high civilisation of the first four centuries into the simplicity of -the Dark Ages, the Villa, the unit of agricultural production, became more -and more the model of all society. - -Now the Villa began as a considerable extent of land, containing, like a -modern English estate, pasture, arable, water, wood and heath, or waste -land. It was owned by a dominus or _lord_ in absolute proprietorship, to -sell, or leave by will, to do with it whatsoever he chose. It was -cultivated for him by _Slaves_ to whom he owed nothing in return, and whom -it was simply his interest to keep alive and to continue breeding in order -that they might perpetuate his wealth. - -I concentrate particularly upon these Slaves, the great majority of the -human beings inhabiting the land, because, although there arose in the Dark -Ages, when the Roman Empire was passing into the society of the Middle -Ages, other social elements within the _Villae_--the Freed men who owed the -lord a modified service, and even occasionally independent citizens present -through a contract terminable and freely entered into yet it is the _Slave_ -who is the mark of all that society. - -At its origin, then, the Roman Villa was a piece of absolute property, the -production of wealth upon which was due to the application of slave labour -to the natural resources of the place; and that slave labour was as much -the property of the lord as was the land itself. - -The first modification which this arrangement showed in the new society -which accompanied the growth and establishment of the Church in the Roman -world, was a sort of customary rule which modified the old arbitrary -position of the Slave. - -The Slave was still a Slave, but it was both more convenient in the decay -of communications and public power, and more consonant with the social -spirit of the time to make sure of that Slave's produce by asking him for -no more than certain customary dues. The Slave and his descendants became -more or less rooted to one spot. Some were still bought and sold, but in -decreasing numbers. As the generations passed a larger and a larger -proportion lived where and as their fathers had lived, and the produce -which they raised was fixed more and more at a certain amount, which the -lord was content to receive and ask no more. The arrangement was made -workable by leaving to the Slave all the remaining produce of his own -labour. There was a sort of implied bargain here, in the absence of public -powers and in the decline of the old highly centralised and vigorous system -which could always guarantee to the master the full product of the Slave's -effort. The bargain implied was, that if the Slave Community of the Villa -would produce for the benefit of its Lord not less than a certain customary -amount of goods from the soil of the Villa, the Lord could count on their -always exercising that effort by leaving to them all the surplus, which -they could increase, if they willed, indefinitely. - -By the ninth century, when this process had been gradually at work for a -matter of some three hundred years, one fixed form of productive unit began -to be apparent throughout Western Christendom. - -The old absolutely owned estate had come to be divided into three portions. -One of these was pasture and arable land, reserved privately to the lord, -and called _domain_: that is, lord's land. Another was in the occupation, -and already almost in the possession (practically, though not legally), of -those who had once been Slaves. A third was common land over which both the -Lord and the Slave exercised each their various rights, which rights were -minutely remembered and held sacred by custom. For instance, in a certain -village, if there was beech pasture for three hundred swine, the lord might -put in but fifty: two hundred and fifty were the rights of the "village." - -Upon the first of these portions, Domain, wealth was produced by the -obedience of the Slave for certain fixed hours of labour. He must come so -many days a week, or upon such and such occasions (all fixed and -customary), to till the land of the Domain for his Lord, and _all_ the -produce of this must be handed over to the Lord though, of course, a daily -wage in kind was allowed, for the labourer must live. - -Upon the second portion, "Land in Villenage," which was nearly always the -most of the arable and pasture land of the _Villae_, the Slaves worked by -rules and customs which they gradually came to elaborate for themselves. -They worked under an officer of their own, sometimes nominated, sometimes -elected: nearly always, in practice, a man suitable to them and more or -less of their choice; though this co-operative work upon the old -Slave-ground was controlled by the general customs of the village, common -to lord and slave alike, and the principal officer over both kinds of land -was the Lord's Steward. - -Of the wealth so produced by the Slaves, a certain fixed portion (estimated -originally in kind) was payable to the Lord's Bailiff, and became the -property of the Lord. - -Finally, on the third division of the land, the "Waste," the "Wood," the -"Heath," and certain common pastures, wealth was produced as elsewhere by -the labour of those who had once been the Slaves, but divided in customary -proportions between them and their master. Thus, such and such a water -meadow would have grazing for so many oxen; the number was rigidly defined, -and of that number so many would be the Lord's and so many the Villagers'. - -During the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries this system crystallised and -became so natural in men's eyes that the original servile character of the -working folk upon the Villa was forgotten. - -The documents of the time are rare. These three centuries are the crucible -of Europe, and record is drowned and burnt in them. Our study of their -social conditions, especially in the latter part, are matter rather of -inference than of direct evidence. But the sale and purchase of men, -already exceptional at the beginning of this period, is almost unknown -before the end of it. Apart from domestic slaves within the household, -slavery in the old sense which Pagan antiquity gave that institution had -been transformed out of all knowledge, and when, with the eleventh century, -the true Middle Ages begin to spring from the soil of the Dark Ages, and a -new civilisation to arise, though the old word _servus_ (the Latin for a -slave) is still used for the man who works the soil, his status in the now -increasing number of documents which we can consult is wholly changed; we -can certainly no longer translate the word by the English word _slave_; we -are compelled to translate it by a new word with very different -connotations: the word _serf_. - -The Serf of the early Middle Ages, of the eleventh and early twelfth -centuries, of the Crusades and the Norman Conquest, is already nearly a -peasant. He is indeed bound in legal theory to the soil upon which he was -born. In social practice, all that is required of him is that his family -should till its quota of servile land, and that the dues to the lord shall -not fail from absence of labour. That duty fulfilled, it is easy and common -for members of the serf-class to enter the professions and the Church, or -to go wild; to become men practically free in the growing industries of the -towns. With every passing generation the ancient servile conception of the -labourer's status grows more and more dim, and the Courts and the practice -of society treat him more and more as a man strictly bound to certain dues -and to certain periodical labour within his industrial unit, but in all -other respects free. - -As the civilisation of the Middle Ages develops, as wealth increases and -the arts progressively flourish, this character of freedom becomes more -marked. In spite of attempts in time of scarcity (as after a plague) to -insist upon the old rights to compulsory labour, the habit of commuting -these rights for money-payments and dues has grown too strong to be -resisted. - -If at the end of the fourteenth century, let us say, or at the beginning of -the fifteenth, you had visited some Squire upon his estate in France or in -England, he would have told you of the whole of it, "These are my lands." -But the peasant (as he now was) would have said also of his holding, "This -is my land." He could not be evicted from it. The dues which he was -customarily bound to pay were but a fraction of its total produce. He could -not always sell it, but it was always inheritable from father to son; and, -in general, at the close of this long process of a thousand years the Slave -had become a free man for all the ordinary purposes of society. He bought -and sold. He saved as he willed, he invested, he built, he drained at his -discretion, and if he improved the land it was to his own profit. - -Meanwhile, side by side with this emancipation of mankind in the direct -line of descent from the old chattel slaves of the Roman villa went, in the -Middle Ages, a crowd of institutions which all similarly made for a -distribution of property, and for the destruction of even the fossil -remnants of a then forgotten Servile State. Thus industry of every kind in -the towns, in transport, in crafts, and in commerce, was organised in the -form of _Guilds_. And a Guild was a society partly co-operative, but in the -main composed of private owners of capital whose corporation was -self-governing, and was designed to check competition between its members: -to prevent the growth of one at the expense of the other. Above all, most -jealously did the Guild safeguard the division of property, so that there -should be formed within its ranks no proletariat upon the one side, and no -monopolising capitalist upon the other. - -There was a period of apprenticeship at a man's entry into a Guild, during -which he worked for a master; but in time he became a master in his turn. -The existence of such corporations as the normal units of industrial -production, of commercial effort, and of the means of transport, is proof -enough of what the social spirit was which had also enfranchised the -labourer upon the land. And while such institutions flourished side by side -with the no longer servile village communities, freehold or absolute -possession of the soil, as distinguished from the tenure of the serf under -the lord, also increased. - -These three forms under which labour was exercised the serf, secure in his -position, and burdened only with regular dues, which were but a fraction of -his produce; the freeholder, a man independent save for money dues, which -were more of a tax than a rent; the Guild, in which well-divided capital -worked co-operatively for craft production, for transport and for -commerce--all three between them were making for a society which should be -based upon the principle of property. All, or most,--the normal -family--should own. And on ownership the freedom of the State should -repose. - -The State, as the minds of men envisaged it at the close of this process, -was an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater -number owners of the means of production. It was an agglomeration in which -the stability of this _distributive_ system (as I have called it) was -guaranteed by the existence of co-operative bodies, binding men of the same -craft or of the same village together; guaranteeing the small proprietor -against loss of his economic independence, while at the same time it -guaranteed society against the growth of a proletariat. If liberty of -purchase and of sale, of mortgage and of inheritance was restricted, it was -restricted with the social object of preventing the growth of an economic -oligarchy which could exploit the rest of the community. The restraints -upon liberty were restraints designed for the preservation of liberty; and -every action of Mediaeval Society, from the flower of the Middle Ages to -the approach of their catastrophe, was directed towards the establishment -of a State in which men should be economically free through the possession -of capital and of land. - -Save here and there in legal formulae, or in rare patches isolated and -eccentric, the Servile Institution had totally disappeared; nor must it be -imagined that anything in the nature of Collectivism had replaced it. There -was common land, but it was common land jealously guarded by men who were -also personal proprietors of other land. Common property in the village was -but one of the forms of property, and was used rather as the fly-wheel to -preserve the regularity of the co-operative machine than as a type of -holding in any way peculiarly sacred. The Guilds had property in common, -but that property was the property necessary to their co-operative life, -their Halls, their Funds for Relief, their Religious Endowments. As for the -instruments of their trades, those instruments were owned by the individual -members, _not_ by the guild, save where they were of so expensive a kind as -to necessitate a corporate control. - -Such was the transformation which had come over European society in the -course of ten Christian centuries. Slavery had gone, and in its place had -come that establishment of free possession which seemed so normal to men, -and so consonant to a happy human life. No particular name was then found -for it. To-day, and now that it has disappeared, we must construct an -awkward one, and say that the Middle Ages had instinctively conceived and -brought into existence the /Distributive State/. - -That excellent consummation of human society passed, as we know, and was in -certain Provinces of Europe, but more particularly in Britain, destroyed. - -For a society in which the determinant mass of families were owners of -capital and of land; for one in which production was regulated by -self-governing corporations of small owners; and for one in which the -misery and insecurity of a proletariat was unknown, there came to be -substituted the dreadful moral anarchy against which all moral effort is -now turned, and which goes by the name of _Capitalism_. - -How did such a catastrophe come about? Why was it permitted, and upon what -historical process did the evil batten? What turned an England economically -free into the England which we know to-day, of which at least one-third is -indigent, of which nineteen-twentieths are dispossessed of capital and of -land, and of which the whole industry and national life is controlled upon -its economic side by a few chance directors of millions, a few masters of -unsocial and irresponsible monopolies? - -The answer most usually given to this fundamental question in our history, -and the one most readily accepted, is that this misfortune came about -through a material process known as the _Industrial Revolution_. The use of -expensive machinery, the concentration of industry and of its implements -are imagined to have enslaved, in some blind way, apart from the human -will, the action of English mankind. - -The explanation is wholly false. No such material cause determined the -degradation from which we suffer. - -It was the deliberate action of men, evil will in a few and apathy of will -among the many, which produced a catastrophe as human in its causes and -inception as in its vile effect. - -Capitalism was not the growth of the industrial movement, nor of chance -material discoveries. A little acquaintance with history and a little -straightforwardness in the teaching of it would be enough to prove that. - -The Industrial System was a growth proceeding from Capitalism, not its -cause. Capitalism was here in England before the Industrial System came -into being;--before the use of coal and of the new expensive machinery, and -of the concentration of the implements of production in the great towns. -Had Capitalism not been present before the Industrial Revolution, that -revolution might have proved as beneficent to Englishmen as it has proved -maleficent. But Capitalism--that is, the ownership by a few of the springs -of life--was present long before the great discoveries came. It warped the -effect of these discoveries and new inventions, and it turned them from a -good into an evil thing. It was not machinery that lost us our freedom; it -was the loss of a free mind. - - - - -Section Four -How the Distributive State Failed - - -With the close of the middle ages the societies of Western Christendom and -England among the rest were economically free. - -Property was an institution native to the State and enjoyed by the great -mass of its citizens. Co-operative institutions, voluntary regulations of -labour, restricted the completely independent use of property by its owners -only in order to keep that institution intact and to prevent the absorption -of small property by great. - -This excellent state of affairs which we had reached after many centuries -of Christian development, and in which the old institution of slavery had -been finally eliminated from Christendom, did not everywhere survive. In -England in particular it was ruined. The seeds of the disaster were sown in -the sixteenth century. Its first apparent effects came to light in the -seventeenth. During the eighteenth century England came to be finally, -though insecurely, established upon a proletarian basis, that is, it had -already become a society of rich men possessed of the means of production -on the one hand, and a majority dispossessed of those means upon the other. -With the nineteenth century the evil plant had come to its maturity, and -England had become before the close of that period a purely Capitalist -State, the type and model of Capitalism for the whole world: with the means -of production tightly held by a very small group of citizens, and the whole -determining mass of the nation dispossessed of capital and land, and -dispossessed, therefore, in all cases of security, and in many of -sufficiency as well. The mass of Englishmen, still possessed of political, -lacked more and more the elements of economic, freedom, and were in a worse -posture than free citizens have ever found themselves before in the history -of Europe. - -By what steps did so enormous a catastrophe fall upon us? - -The first step in the process consisted in the mishandling of a great -economic revolution which marked the sixteenth century. The lands and the -accumulated wealth of the monasteries were taken out of, the hands of their -old possessors with the intention of vesting them in the Crown--but they -passed, as a fact, not into the hands of the Crown, but into the hands of -an already wealthy section of the community who, after the change was -complete, became in the succeeding hundred years the governing power of -England. - -This is what happened:-- - -The England of the early sixteenth century, the England over which Henry -VIII inherited his powerful Crown in youth, though it was an England in -which the great mass of men owned the land they tilled and the houses in -which they dwelt, and the implements with which they worked, was yet an -England in which these goods, though widely distributed, were distributed -unequally. - -Then, as now, the soil and its fixtures were the basis of all wealth, but -the proportion between the value of the soil and its fixtures and the value -of other means of production (implements, stores of clothing and of -subsistence, etc.) was different from what it is now. The land and the -fixtures upon it formed a very much larger fraction of the totality of the -means of production than they do to-day. They represent to-day not one-half -the total means of production of this country, and though they are the -necessary foundation for all wealth production, yet our great machines, our -stores of food and clothing, our coal and oil, our ships and the rest of -it, come to more than the true value of the land and of the fixtures upon -the land: they come to more than the arable soil and the pasture, the -constructional value of the houses, wharves and docks, and so forth. In the -early sixteenth century the land and the fixtures upon it came, upon the -contrary, to very much more than all other forms of wealth combined. - -Now this form of wealth was here, more than in any other Western European -country, already in the hands of a wealthy land-owning class at the end of -the Middle Ages. - -It is impossible to give exact statistics, because none were gathered, and -we can only make general statements based upon inference and research. But, -roughly speaking, we may say that of the total value of the land and its -fixtures, probably rather more than a quarter, though less than a third, -was in the hands of this wealthy class. - -The England of that day was mainly agricultural, and consisted of more than -four, but less than six million people, and in every agricultural community -you would have the Lord, as he was legally called (the squire, as he was -already conversationally termed), in possession of more demesne land than -in any other country. On the average you found him, I say, owning in this -absolute fashion rather more than a quarter, perhaps a third of the land of -the village: in the towns the distribution was more even. Sometimes it was -a private individual who was in this position, sometimes a corporation, but -in every village you would have found this demesne land absolutely owned by -the political head of the village, occupying a considerable proportion of -its acreage. The rest, though distributed as property among the less -fortunate of the population, and carrying with it houses and implements -from which they could not be dispossessed, paid certain dues to the Lord, -and, what was more, the Lord exercised local justice. This class of wealthy -landowners had been also for now one hundred years the Justices upon whom -local administration depended. - -There was no reason why this state of affairs should not gradually have led -to the rise of the Peasant and the decay of the Lord. That is what happened -in France, and it might perfectly well have happened here. A peasantry -eager to purchase might have gradually extended their holdings at the -expense of the demesne land, and to the distribution of property, which was -already fairly complete, there might have been added another excellent -element, namely, the more equal possession of that property. But any such -process of gradual buying by the small man from the great, such as would -seem natural to the temper of us European people, and such as has since -taken place nearly everywhere in countries which were left free to act upon -their popular instincts, was interrupted in this country by an artificial -revolution of the most violent kind. This artificial revolution consisted -in the seizing of the monastic lands by the Crown. - -It is important to grasp clearly the nature of this operation, for the -whole economic future of England was to flow from it. - -Of the _demesne_ lands, and the power of local administration which they -carried with them (a very important feature, as we shall see later), rather -more than a quarter were in the hands of the Church; the Church was -therefore the "Lord" of something over 25 per cent. say 28 per cent. or -perhaps nearly 30 per cent. of English agricultural communities, and the -overseers of a like proportion of all English agricultural produce. The -Church was further the absolute owner in practice of something like 30 per -cent. of the demesne land in the villages, and the receiver of something -like 30 per cent. of the customary dues, etc., paid by the smaller owners -to the greater. All this economic power lay until 1535 in the hands of -Cathedral Chapters, communities of monks and nuns, educational -establishments conducted by the clergy, and so forth. - -When the Monastic lands were confiscated by Henry VIII, not the whole of -this vast economic influence was suddenly extinguished. The secular clergy -remained endowed, and most of the educational establishments, though -looted, retained some revenue; but though the whole 30 per cent. did not -suffer confiscation, something well over 20 per cent. did, and the -revolution effected by this vast operation was by far the most complete, -the most sudden, and the most momentous of any that has taken place in the -economic history of any European people. - -It was at first _intended_ to retain this great mass of the means of -production in the hands of the Crown: that must be clearly remembered by -any student of the fortunes of England, and by all who marvel at the -contrast between the old England and the new. - -Had that intention been firmly maintained, the English State and its -government would have been the most powerful in Europe. - -The Executive (which in those days meant the _King_) would have had a -greater opportunity for crushing the resistance of the wealthy, for backing -its political power with economic power, and for ordering the social life -of its subjects than any other executive in Christendom. - -Had Henry VIII and his successors kept the land thus confiscated, the power -of the French Monarchy, at which we are astonished, would have been nothing -to the power of the English. - -The King of England would have had in his own hands an instrument of -control of the most absolute sort. He would presumably have used it, as a -strong central government always does, for the weakening of the wealthier -classes, and to the indirect advantage of the mass of the people. At any -rate, it would have been a very different England indeed from the England -we know, if the King had held fast to his own after the dissolution of the -monasteries. - -Now it is precisely here that the capital point in this great revolution -appears. _The King failed to keep the lands he had seized._ That class of -large landowners which already existed and controlled, as I have said, -anything from a quarter to a third of the agricultural values of England, -were too strong for the monarchy. They insisted upon land being granted to -themselves, sometimes freely, sometimes for ridiculously small sums, and -they were strong enough in Parliament, and through the local administrative -power they had, to see that their demands were satisfied. Nothing that the -Crown let go ever went back to the Crown, and year after year more and more -of what had once been the monastic land became the absolute possession of -the large landowners. - -Observe the effect of this. All over England men who already held in -virtually absolute property from one-quarter to one-third of the soil and -the ploughs and the barns of a village, became possessed in a very few -years of a further great section of the means of production, which turned -the scale wholly in their favour. They added to that third a new and extra -fifth. They became at a blow the owners of _half_ the land! In many centres -of capital importance they had come to own _more_ than half the land. They -were in many districts not only the unquestioned superiors, but the -economic masters of the rest of the community. They could buy to the -greatest advantage. They were strictly _competitive_, getting every -shilling of due and of rent where the old clerical landlords had been -_customary_--leaving much to the tenant. They began to fill the -universities, the judiciary. The Crown less and less decided between great -and small. More and more the great could decide in their own favour. They -soon possessed by these operations the bulk of the means of production, and -they immediately began the process of eating up the small independent men -and gradually forming those great estates which, in the course of a few -generations, became identical with the village itself. All over England you -may notice that the great squires' houses date from this revolution or -after it. The manorial house, the house of the local great man as it was in -the Middle Ages, survives here and there to show of what immense effect -this revolution was. The low-timbered place with its steadings and -outbuildings, only a larger farmhouse among the other farmhouses, is turned -after the Reformation and thenceforward into a palace. Save where great -castles (which were only held of the Crown and not owned) made an -exception, the pre-Reformation gentry lived as men richer than, but not the -masters of, other farmers around them. _After_ the Reformation there began -to arise all over England those great "country houses" which rapidly became -the typical centres of English agricultural life. - -The process was in full swing before Henry died. Unfortunately for England, -he left as his heir a sickly child, during the six years of whose reign, -from 1547 to 1553, the loot went on at an appalling rate. When he died and -Mary came to the throne it was nearly completed. A mass of new families had -arisen, wealthy out of all proportion to anything which the older England -had known, and bound by a common interest to the older families which had -joined in the grab. Every single man who sat in Parliament for a country -required his price for voting the dissolution of the monasteries; every -single man received it. A list of the members of the Dissolution Parliament -is enough to prove this, and, apart from their power in Parliament, this -class had a hundred other ways of insisting on their will. The Howards -(already of some lineage), the Cavendishes, the Cecils, the Russels, and -fifty other new families thus rose upon the ruins of religion; and the -process went steadily on until, about one hundred years after its -inception, the whole face of England was changed. - -In the place of a powerful Crown disposing of revenues far greater than -that of any subject, you had a Crown at its wit's end for money, and -dominated by subjects some of whom were its equals in wealth, and who -could, especially through the action of Parliament (which they now -controlled), do much what they willed with Government. - -In other words, by the first third of the seventeenth century, by 1630--40, -the economic revolution was finally accomplished, and the new economic -reality thrusting itself upon the old traditions of England was a powerful -oligarchy of large owners overshadowing an impoverished and dwindled -monarchy. - -Other causes had contributed to this deplorable result. The change in the -value of money had hit the Crown very hard;[2] the peculiar history of the -Tudor family, their violent passions, their lack of resolution and of any -continuous policy, to some extent the character of Charles I himself, and -many another subsidiary cause may be quoted. But the great main fact upon -which the whole thing is dependent is the fact that the Monastic Lands, at -least a fifth of the wealth of the country, had been transferred to the -great landowners, and that this transference had tipped the scale over -entirely in their favour as against the peasantry. - -The diminished and impoverished Crown could no longer stand. It fought -against the new wealth, the struggle of the Civil Wars; it was utterly -defeated; and when a final settlement was arrived at in 1660, you have all -the realities of power in the hands of a small powerful class of wealthy -men, the King still surrounded by the forms and traditions of his old -power, but in practice a salaried puppet. And in that economic world which -underlies all political appearances, the great dominating note was that a -few wealthy families had got hold of the bulk of the means of production in -England, while the same families exercised all local administrative power -and were moreover the Judges, the Higher Education, the Church, and the -generals. They quite overshadowed what was left of central government in -this country. - -Take, as a starting-point for what followed, the date 1700. By that time -more than half of the English were dispossessed of capital and of land. Not -one man in two, even if you reckon the very small owners, inhabited a house -of which he was the secure possessor, or tilled land from which he could -not be turned off. - -Such a proportion may seem to us to-day a wonderfully free arrangement, and -certainly if nearly one-half of our population were possessed of the means -of production, we should be in a very different situation from that in -which we find ourselves. But the point to seize is that, though the bad -business was very far from completion in or about the year 1700, yet by -that date England had already become /Capitalist/. She had already -permitted a vast section of her population to become _proletarian_, and it -is this and _not_ the so-called "Industrial Revolution," a later thing, -which accounts for the terrible social condition in which we find ourselves -to-day. - -How true this is what I still have to say in this section will prove. - -In an England thus already cursed with a very large proletariat class, and -in an England already directed by a dominating Capitalist class, possessing -the means of production, there came a great industrial development. - -Had that industrial development come upon a people economically free, it -would have taken a co-operative form. Coming as it did upon a people which -had already largely lost its economic freedom, it took at its very origin a -_Capitalist_ form, and this form it has retained, expanded, and perfected -throughout two hundred years. - -It was in England that the Industrial System arose. It was in England that -all its traditions and habits were formed; and because the England in which -it arose was already a Capitalist England, modern Industrialism, wherever -you see it at work to-day, having spread from England, has proceeded upon -the Capitalist model. - -It was in 1705 that the first practical steam-engine, Newcomen's, was set -to work. The life of a man elapsed before this invention was made, by -Watt's introduction of the condenser, into the great instrument of -production which has transformed our industry--but in those sixty years all -the origins of the Industrial System are to be discovered. It was just -before Watt's patent that Hargreaves' spinning-jenny appeared. Thirty years -earlier, Abraham Darby of Colebrook Dale, at the end of a long series of -experiments which had covered more than a century, smelted iron-ore -successfully with coke. Not twenty years later, King introduced the flying -shuttle, the first great improvement in the hand-loom; and in general the -period covered by such a life as that of Dr Johnson, born just after -Newcomen's engine was first set working, and dying seventy-four years -afterwards, when the Industrial System was in full blast, covers that great -transformation of England. A man who, as a child, could remember the last -years of Queen Anne, and who lived to the eve of the French Revolution, saw -passing before his eyes the change which transformed English society and -has led it to the expansion and peril in which we see it to-day. - -What was the characteristic mark of that half-century and more? Why did the -new inventions give us the form of society now known and hated under the -name of Industrial? Why did the vast increase in the powers of production, -in population and in accumulation of wealth, turn the mass of Englishmen -into a poverty-stricken proletariat, cut off the rich from the rest of the -nation, and develop to the full all the evils which we associate with the -Capitalist State? - -To that question an answer almost as universal as it is unintelligent has -been given. That answer is not only unintelligent but false, and it will be -my business here to show how false it is. The answer so provided in -innumerable textbooks, and taken almost as commonplace in our universities, -is that the new methods of production--the new machinery, the new -implements--fatally and of themselves developed a Capitalist State in which -a few should own the means of production and the mass should be -proletariat. The new instruments, it is pointed out, were on so vastly -greater a scale than the old, and were so much more expensive, that the -small man could not afford them; while the rich man, who could afford them, -ate up by his competition, and reduced from the position of a small owner -to that of a wage-earner, his insufficiently equipped competitor who still -attempted to struggle on with the older and cheaper tools. To this (we are -told) the advantages of concentration were added in favour of the large -owner against the small. Not only were the new instruments expensive almost -in proportion to their efficiency, but, especially after the introduction -of steam, they were efficient in proportion to their concentration in few -places and under the direction of a few men. Under the effect of such false -arguments as these we have been taught to believe that the horrors of the -Industrial System were a blind and necessary product of material and -impersonal forces, and that wherever the steam engine, the power loom, the -blast furnace and the rest were introduced, there fatally would soon appear -a little group of owners exploiting a vast majority of the dispossessed. - -It is astonishing that a statement so unhistorical should have gained so -general a credence. Indeed, were the main truths of English history taught -in our schools and universities to-day, were educated men familiar with the -determining and major facts of the national past, such follies could never -have taken root. The vast growth of the proletariat, the concentration of -ownership into the hands of a few owners, and the exploitation by those -owners of the mass of the community, had no fatal or necessary connection -with the discovery of new and perpetually improving methods of production. -The evil proceeded indirect historical sequence, proceeded patently and -demonstrably, from the fact that England, the seed-plot of the Industrial -System, was _already_ captured by a wealthy oligarchy _before_ the series -of great discoveries began. - -Consider in what way the Industrial System developed upon Capitalist lines. -Why were a few rich men put with such ease into possession of the new -methods? Why was it normal and natural in their eyes and in that of -contemporary society that those who produced the new wealth with the new -machinery should be proletarian and dispossessed? Simply because the -England upon which the new discoveries had come was _already_ an England -owned as to its soil and accumulations of wealth by a small minority: it -was _already_ an England in which perhaps half of the whole population was -proletarian, and a medium for exploitation ready to hand. - -When any one of the new industries was launched it had to be _capitalised_; -that is, accumulated wealth from some source or other had to be found which -would support labour in the process of production until that process should -be complete. Someone must find the corn and the meat and the housing and -the clothing by which should be supported, between the extraction of the -raw material and the moment when the consumption of the finished article -could begin, the human agents which dealt with that raw material and turned -it into the finished product. Had property been well distributed, protected -by co-operative guilds fenced round and supported by custom and by the -autonomy of great artisan corporations, those accumulations of wealth, -necessary for the launching of each new method of production and for each -new perfection of it, would have been discovered in the mass of small -owners. _Their_ corporations, _their_ little parcels of wealth combined -would have furnished the _capitalisation_ required for the new processes, -and men already owners would, as one invention succeeded another, have -increased the total wealth of the community without disturbing the balance -of distribution. There is no conceivable link in reason or in experience -which binds the capitalisation of a new process with the idea of a few -employing owners and a mass of employed non-owners working at a wage. Such -great discoveries coming in a society like that of the thirteenth century -would have blest and enriched mankind. Coming upon the diseased moral -conditions of the eighteenth century in this country, they proved a curse. - -To whom could the new industry turn for capitalisation? The small owner had -already largely disappeared. The corporate life and mutual obligations -which had supported him and confirmed him in his property had been broken -to pieces by no "economic development," but by the deliberate action of the -rich. He was ignorant because his schools had been taken from him and the -universities closed to him. He was the more ignorant because the common -life which once nourished his social sense and the co-operative -arrangements which had once been his defence had disappeared. When you -sought an accumulation of corn, of clothing, of housing, of fuel as the -indispensable preliminary to the launching of your new industry; when you -looked round for someone who could find the accumulated wealth necessary -for these considerable experiments, you had to turn to the class which had -already monopolised the bulk of the means of production in England. The -rich men alone could furnish you with those supplies. - -Nor was this all. The supplies once found and the adventure "capitalised," -that form of human energy which lay best to hand, which was indefinitely -exploitable, weak, ignorant, and desperately necessitous, ready to produce -for you upon almost any terms, and glad enough if you would only keep it -alive, was the existing proletariat which the new plutocracy had created -when, in cornering the wealth of the country after the Reformation, they -had thrust out the mass of Englishmen from the possession of implements, of -houses, and of land. - -The rich class, adopting some new process of production for its private -gain, worked it upon those lines of mere competition which its avarice had -already established. Co-operative tradition was dead. Where would it find -its cheapest labour? Obviously among the proletariat--not among the -remaining small owners. What class would increase under the new wealth? -Obviously the proletariat again, without responsibilities, with nothing to -leave to its progeny; and as they swelled the capitalist's gain, they -enabled him with increasing power to buy out the small owner and send him -to swell by another tributary the proletarian mass. - -It was upon this account that the Industrial Revolution, as it is called, -took in its very origins the form which has made it an almost unmixed curse -for the unhappy society in which it has flourished. The rich, already -possessed of the accumulations by which that industrial change could alone -be nourished, inherited all its succeeding accumulations of implements and -all its increasing accumulations of subsistence. The factory system, -starting upon a basis of capitalist and proletariat, grew in the mould -which had determined its origins. With every new advance the capitalist -looked for proletariat grist to feed the productive mill. Every -circumstance of that society, the form in which the laws that governed -ownership and profit were cast, the obligations of partners, the relations -bet ween "master" and "man," directly made for the indefinite expansion of -a subject, formless, wage-earning class controlled by a small body of -owners, which body would tend to become smaller and richer still, and to be -possessed of power ever greater and greater as the bad business unfolded. - -The spread of economic oligarchy was everywhere, and not in industry alone. -The great landlords destroyed deliberately and of set purpose and to their -own ad vantage the common rights over common land. The small plutocracy -with which they were knit up, and with whose mercantile elements they were -now fused, directed everything to its own ends. That strong central -government which should protect the community against the rapacity of a few -had gone generations before. Capitalism triumphant wielded all the -mechanism of legislation and of information too. It still holds them; and -there is not an example of so-called "Social Reform" to-day which is not -demonstrably (though often subconsciously) directed to the further -entrenchment and confirmation of an industrial society in which it is taken -for granted that a few shall own, that the vast majority shall live at a -wage under them, and that all the bulk of Englishmen may hope for is the -amelioration of their lot by regulations and by control from above--but not -by property; not by freedom. - -We all feel--and those few of us who have analysed the matter not only feel -but know--that the Capitalist society thus gradually developed from its -origins in the capture of the land four hundred years ago has reached its -term. It is almost self-evident that it cannot continue in the form which -now three generations have known, and it is equally self-evident that some -solution must be found for the intolerable and increasing instability with -which it has poisoned our lives. But before considering the solutions -variously presented by various schools of thought, I shall in my next -section show how and why the English Capitalist Industrial System is thus -intolerably unstable and consequently presents an acute problem which must -be solved under pain of social death. - -* * * * * - -It must be noted that modern Industrialism has spread to many other centres -from England. It bears everywhere the features stamped upon it by its -origin in this country. - - - - -Section Five -The Capitalist State in Proportion as It Grows Perfect Grows Unstable - - -From the historical digression which I have introduced by way of -illustrating my subject in the last two sections I now return to the -general discussion of my thesis and to the logical process by which it may -be established. - -* * * * * - -The Capitalist State is unstable, and indeed more properly a transitory -phase lying between two permanent and stable states of society. - -In order to appreciate why this is so, let us recall the definition of the -Capitalist State:-- - -"A society in which the ownership of the means of production is confined to -a body of free citizens, not large enough to make up properly a general -character of that society, while the rest are dispossessed of the means of -production, and are therefore proletarian, we call _Capitalist_." - -Note the several points of such a state of affairs. You have private -ownership; but it is not private ownership distributed in many hands and -thus familiar as an institution to society as a whole. Again, you have the -great majority dispossessed but at the same time citizens, that is, men -politically free to act, though economically impotent; again, though it is -but an inference from our definition, it is a necessary inference that -there will be under Capitalism a conscious, direct, and planned -_exploitation_ of the majority, the free citizens who do not own by the -minority who are owners. For wealth must be produced: the whole of that -community must live: and the possessors can make such terms with the -non-possessors as shall make it certain that a portion of what the -non-possessors have produced shall go to the possessors. - -A society thus constituted cannot endure. It cannot endure because it is -subject to two very severe strains: strains which increase in severity in -proportion as that society becomes more thoroughly Capitalist. The first of -these strains arises from the divergence between the moral theories upon -which the State reposes and the social facts which those moral theories -attempt to govern. The second strain arises from the insecurity to which -Capitalism condemns the great mass of society, and the general character of -anxiety and peril which it imposes upon all citizens, but in particular -upon the majority, which consists, under Capitalism, of dispossessed free -men. - -Of these two strains it is impossible to say which is the gravest. Either -would be enough to destroy a social arrangement in which it was long -present. The two combined make that destruction certain; and there is no -longer any doubt that Capitalist society must transform itself into some -other and more stable arrangement. It is the object of these pages to -discover what that stable arrangement will probably be. - -* * * * * - -We say that there is a moral strain already intolerably severe and growing -more severe with every perfection of Capitalism. - -This moral strain comes from a contradiction between the realities of -Capitalist and the moral base of our laws and traditions. - -The moral base upon which our laws are still administered and our -conventions raised presupposes a state composed of free citizens. Our laws -defend property as a normal institution with which all citizens are -acquainted, and which all citizens respect. It punishes theft as an -abnormal incident only occurring when, through evil motives, one free -citizen acquires the property of another without his knowledge and against -his will. It punishes fraud as another abnormal incident in which, from -evil motives, one free citizen induces another to part with his property -upon false representations. It enforces contract, the sole moral base of -which is the freedom of the two contracting parties, and the power of -either, if it so please him, not to enter into a contract which, once -entered into, must be enforced. It gives to an owner the power to leave his -property by will, under the conception that such ownership and such passage -of property (to natural heirs as a rule, but exceptionally to any other -whom the testator may point out) is the normal operation of a society -generally familiar with such things, and finding them part of the domestic -life lived by the mass of its citizens. It casts one citizen in damages if -by any wilful action he has caused loss to another--for it presupposes him -able to pay. - -The sanction upon which social life reposes is, in our moral theory, the -legal punishment enforceable in our Courts, and the basis presupposed for -the security and material happiness of our citizens is the possession of -goods which shall guarantee us from anxiety and permit us an independence -of action in the midst of our fellowmen. - -Now contrast all this, the moral theory upon which society is still -perilously conducted, the moral theory to which Capitalism itself turns for -succour when it is attacked, contrast, I say, its formulae and its -presuppositions with the social reality of a Capitalist State such as is -England to-day. - -Property remains as an instinct perhaps with most of the citizens; as an -experience and a reality it is unknown to nineteen out of twenty. One -hundred forms of fraud, the necessary corollary of unrestrained competition -between a few and of unrestrained avarice as the motive controlling -production, are not or cannot be punished: petty forms of violence in theft -and of cunning in fraud the laws can deal with, but they cannot deal with -these alone. Our legal machinery has become little more than an engine for -protecting the few owners against the necessities, the demands, or the -hatred of the mass of their dispossessed fellow-citizens. The vast bulk of -so-called "free" contracts are to-day leonine contracts: arrangements which -one man was free to take or to leave, but which the other man was not free -to take or to leave, because the second had for his alternative starvation. - -Most important of all, the fundamental social fact of our movement, far -more important than any security afforded by law, or than any machinery -which the State can put into action, is the fact that livelihood is at the -will of the possessors. It can be granted by the possessors to the -non-possessors, or it can be withheld. The real sanction in our society for -the arrangements by which it is conducted is not punishment enforceable by -the Courts, but the withholding of _livelihood_ from the dispossessed by -the possessors. Most men now fear the loss of employment more than they -fear legal punishment, and the discipline under which men are coerced in -their modern forms of activity in England is the fear of dismissal. The -true master of the Englishman to-day is not the Sovereign nor the officers -of State, nor, save indirectly, the laws; his true master is the -Capitalist. - -Of these main truths everyone is aware; and anyone who sets out to deny -them does so to-day at the peril of his reputation either for honesty or -for intelligence. - -If it be asked why things have come to a head so late (Capitalism having -been in growth for so long), the answer is that England, even now the most -completely Capitalist State of the modern world, did not itself become a -completely Capitalist State until the present generation. Within the memory -of men now living half England was agricultural, with relations domestic -rather than competitive between the various human factors to production. - -This moral strain, therefore, arising from the divergence between what our -laws and moral phrases pretend, and what our society actually is, makes of -that society an utterly unstable thing. - -This spiritual thesis is of far greater gravity than the narrow materialism -of a generation now passing might imagine. Spiritual conflict is more -fruitful of instability in the State than conflict of any other kind, and -there is acute spiritual conflict, conflict in every man's conscience and -ill-ease throughout the commonwealth when the realities of society are -divorced from the moral base of its institution. - -The second strain which we have noted in Capitalism, its second element of -instability, consists in the fact that Capitalism destroys security. - -* * * * * - -Experience is enough to save us any delay upon this main point of our -matter. But even without experience we could reason with absolute certitude -from the very nature of Capitalism that its chief effect would be the -destruction of security in human life. - -Combine these two elements: the ownership of the means of production by a -very few; the political freedom of owners and non-owners alike. There -follows immediately from that combination a competitive market wherein the -labour of the non-owner fetches just what it is worth, not as full -productive power, but as productive power which will leave a surplus to the -Capitalist. It fetches nothing when the labourer cannot work, more in -proportion to the pace at which he is driven; less in middle age than in -youth; less in old age than in middle age; nothing in sickness; nothing in -despair. - -A man in a position to accumulate (the normal result of human labour), a -man founded upon property in sufficient amount and in established form is -no more productive in his non-productive moments than is a proletarian; but -his life is balanced and regulated by his reception of rent and interest as -well as wages. Surplus values come to him, and are the fly-wheel balancing -the extremes of his life and carrying him over his bad times. With a -proletarian it cannot be so. The aspect from Capital looks at a human being -whose labour it proposes to purchase cuts right across that normal aspect -of human life from which we all regard our own affections, duties, and -character. A man thinks of himself, of his chances and of his security -along the line of his own individual existence from birth to death. Capital -purchasing his labour (and not the man himself) purchases but a -cross-section of his life, his moments of activity. For the rest, he must -fend for himself; but to fend for yourself when you have nothing is to -starve. - -As a matter of fact, where a few possess the means of production perfectly -free political conditions are impossible. A perfect Capitalist State cannot -exist, though we have come nearer to it in modern England than other and -more fortunate nations had thought possible. In the perfect Capitalist -State there would be no food available for the non-owner save when he was -actually engaged in Production, and that absurdity would, by quickly ending -all human lives save those of the owners, put a term to the arrangement. If -you left men completely free under a Capitalist system, there would be so -heavy a mortality from starvation as would dry up the sources of labour in -a very short time. - -Imagine the dispossessed to be ideally perfect cowards, the possessors to -consider nothing whatsoever except the buying of their labour in the -cheapest market--and the system would break down from the death of children -and of out-o'-works and of women. You would not have a State in mere -decline such as ours is. You would have a State manifestly and patently -perishing. - -As a fact, of course, Capitalism cannot proceed to its own logical extreme. -So long as the political freedom of all citizens is granted the freedom of -the few possessors of food to grant or withhold it, of the many -non-possessors to strike any bargain at all, lest they lack it: to exercise -such freedom fully is to starve the very young, the old, the impotent, and -the despairing to death. Capitalism must keep alive, by non Capitalist -methods, great masses of the population who would otherwise starve to -death; and that is what Capitalism was careful to do to an increasing -extent as it got a stronger and a stronger grip upon the English people. -Elizabeth's Poor Law at the beginning of the business, the Poor Law of -1834, coming at a moment when nearly half England had passed into the grip -of Capitalism, are original and primitive instances: there are to-day a -hundred others. - -Though this cause of insecurity--the fact that the possessors have no -direct incentive to keep men alive--is logically the most obvious, and -always the most enduring under a Capitalist system, there is another cause -more poignant in its effect upon human life. That other cause is the -competitive anarchy in production which restricted ownership coupled with -freedom involves. Consider what is involved by the very process of -production where the implements and the soil are in the hands of a few -whose motive for causing the proletariat to produce is not the use of the -wealth created but the enjoyment by those possessors of surplus value or -"profit." - -* * * * * - -If full political freedom be allowed to any two such possessors of -implements and stores, each will actively watch his market, attempt to -undersell the other, tend to overproduce at the end of some season of extra -demand for his article, thus glut the market only to suffer a period of -depression afterwards--and so forth. Again, the Capitalist, free, -individual director of production, will miscalculate; sometimes he will -fail, and his works will be shut down. Again, a mass of isolated, -imperfectly instructed competing units cannot but direct their clashing -efforts at an enormous waste, and that waste will fluctuate. Most -commissions, most advertisements, most parades, are examples of this waste. -If this waste of effort could be made a constant, the parasitical -employment it afforded would be a constant too. But of its nature it is a -most inconstant thing, and the employment it affords is therefore -necessarily precarious. The concrete translation of this is the insecurity -of the commercial traveller, the advertising agent, the insurance agent, -and every form of touting and cozening which competitive Capitalism carries -with it. - -Now here again, as in the case of the insecurity produced by age and -sickness, Capitalism cannot be pursued to its logical conclusion, and it is -the element of freedom which suffers. Competition is, as a fact, restricted -to an increasing extent by an understanding between the competitors, -accompanied, especially in this country, by the ruin of the smaller -competitor through secret conspiracies entered into by the larger men, and -supported by the secret political forces of the State.[3] In a word, -Capitalism, proving almost as unstable to the owners as to the non-owners, -is tending towards stability by losing its essential character of political -freedom. No better proof of the instability of Capitalism as a system could -be desired. - -Take any one of the numerous Trusts which now control English industry, and -have made of modern England the type, quoted throughout the Continent, of -artificial monopolies. If the full formula of Capitalism were accepted by -our Courts and our executive statesmen, anyone could start a rival -business, undersell those Trusts and shatter the comparative security they -afford to industry within their field. The reason that no one does this is -that political freedom is not, as a fact, protected here by the Courts in -commercial affairs. A man attempting to compete with one of our great -English Trusts would find himself at once undersold. He might, by all the -spirit of European law for centuries, indict those who would ruin him, -citing them for a conspiracy in restraint of trade; of this conspiracy he -would find the judge and the politicians most heartily in support. - -But it must always be remembered that these conspiracies in restraint of -trade which are the mark of modern England are in themselves a mark of the -transition from the true Capitalist phase to another. - -Under the essential conditions of Capitalism--under a perfect political -freedom--such conspiracies would be punished by the Courts for what they -are: to wit, a contravention of the fundamental doctrine of political -liberty. For this doctrine, while it gives any man the right to make any -contract he chooses with any labourer and offer the produce at such prices -as he sees fit, also involves the protection of that liberty by the -punishment of any conspiracy that may have monopoly for its object. If such -perfect freedom is no longer attempted, if monopolies are permitted and -fostered, it is because the unnatural strain to which freedom, coupled with -restricted ownership, gives rise, the insecurity of its mere competition, -the anarchy of its productive methods have at last proved intolerable. - -I have already delayed more than was necessary in this section upon the -causes which render a Capitalist State essentially unstable. - -I might have treated the matter empirically, taking for granted the -observation which all my readers must have made, that Capitalism is as a -fact doomed, and that the Capitalist State has already passed into its -first phase of transition. - -We are clearly no longer possessed of that absolutely political freedom -which true Capitalism essentially demands. The insecurity involved, coupled -with the divorce between our traditional morals and the facts of society, -have already introduced such novel features as the permission of conspiracy -among both possessors and non-possessors, the compulsory provision of -security through State action, and all these reforms, implicit or explicit, -the tendency of which I am about to examine. - - - - -Section Six -The Stable Solutions of This Instability - - -Given a capitalist state, of its nature unstable, it will tend to reach -stability by some method or another. - -It is the definition of unstable equilibrium that a body in unstable -equilibrium is seeking a stable equilibrium. For instance, a pyramid -balanced upon its apex is in unstable equilibrium; which simply means that -a slight force one way or the other will make it fall into a position where -it will repose. Similarly, certain chemical mixtures are said to be in -unstable equilibrium when their constituent parts have such affinity one -for another that a slight shock may make them combine and transform the -chemical arrangement of the whole. Of this sort are explosives. - -If the Capitalist State is in unstable equilibrium, this only means that it -is seeking a stable equilibrium, and that Capitalism cannot but be -transformed into some other arrangement wherein Society may repose. - -There are but three social arrangements which can replace Capitalism: -Slavery, Socialism, and Property. - -I may imagine a mixture of any two of these three or of all the three, but -each is a dominant type, and from the very nature of the problem no fourth -arrangement can be devised. - -The problem turns, remember, upon the control of the means of production. -Capitalism means that this control is vested in the hands of few, while -political freedom is the appanage of all. If this anomaly cannot endure, -from its insecurity and from its own contradiction with its presumed moral -basis, you must either have a transformation of the one or of the other of -the two elements which combined have been found unworkable. These two -factors are (1) The ownership of the means of Production by a few; (2) The -Freedom of all. To solve Capitalism you must get rid of restricted -ownership, or of freedom, or of both. Now there is only one alternative to -freedom, which is the negation of it. Either a man is free to work and not -to work as he pleases, or he may be liable to a legal compulsion to work, -backed by the forces of the State. In the first he is a free man; in the -second he is by definition a slave. We have, therefore, so far as this -factor of freedom is concerned, no choice between a number of changes, but -only the opportunity of one, to wit, the establishment of slavery in place -of freedom. Such a solution, the direct, immediate, and conscious -re-establishment of slavery, would provide a true solution of the problems -which Capitalism offers. It would guarantee, under workable regulations, -sufficiency and security for the dispossessed. Such a solution, as I shall -show, is the probable goal which our society will in fact approach. To its -immediate and conscious acceptance, however, there is an obstacle. - -A direct and conscious establishment of slavery as a solution to the -problem of Capitalism, the surviving Christian tradition of our -civilisation compels men to reject. No reformer will advocate it; no -prophet dares take it as yet for granted. All theories of a reformed -society will therefore attempt, at first, to leave untouched the factor of -_Freedom_ among the elements which make up Capitalism, and will concern -themselves with some change in the factor of _Property_.[4] - -Now, in attempting to remedy the evils of Capitalism by remedying that one -of its two factors which consists in an ill distribution of property, you -have two, and only two, courses open to you. - -If you are suffering because property is restricted to a few, you can alter -that factor in the problem _either_ by putting property into the hands of -many, or by putting it into the hands of none. There is no third course. - -In the concrete, to put property in the hands of "none" means to vest it as -a trust in the hands of political officers. If you say that the evils -proceeding from Capitalism are due to the institution of property itself, -and not to the dispossession of the many by the few, then you must forbid -the private possession of the means of production by any particular and -private part of the community: but someone must control the means of -production, or we should have nothing to eat. So in practice this doctrine -means the management of the means of production by those who are the public -officers of the community. Whether these public officers are themselves -controlled by the community or no has nothing to do with this solution on -its economic side. The essential point to grasp is that the only -alternative to private property is public property. Somebody must see to -the ploughing and must control the ploughs; otherwise no ploughing will be -done. - -It is equally obvious that if you conclude property in itself to be no evil -but only the small number of its owners, then your remedy is to increase -the number of those owners. - -So much being grasped, we may recapitulate and say that a society like -ours, disliking the name of "slavery," and avoiding a direct and conscious -re-establishment of the slave status, will necessarily contemplate the -reform of its ill-distributed ownership on one of two models. The first is -the negation of private property and the establishment of what is called -Collectivism: that is, the management of the means of production by the -political officers of the community. The second is the wider distribution -of property until that institution shall become the mark of the whole -State, and until free citizens are normally found to be possessors of -capital or land, or both. - -The first model we call _Socialism_ or the Collectivist State; the second -we call the Proprietary or Distributive State. - -With so much elucidated, I will proceed to show in my next section why the -second model, involving the redistribution of property, is rejected as -impracticable by our existing Capitalist Society, and why, therefore, the -model chosen by reformers is the first model, that of a Collectivist State. - -I shall then proceed to show that at its first inception all Collectivist -Reform is necessarily deflected and evolves, in the place of what it had -intended, a new thing: a society wherein the owners remain few and wherein -the proletarian mass accepts security at the expense of servitude. - -* * * * * - -Have I made myself clear? - -If not, I will repeat for the third time, and in its briefest terms, the -formula which is the kernel of my whole thesis. - -The Capitalist State breeds a Collectivist Theory which _in action_ -produces something utterly different from Collectivism: to wit, the -/Servile State/. - - - - -Section Seven -Socialism Is the Easiest Apparent Solution of the Capitalist Crux - - -I say that the line of least resistance, if it be followed, leads a -Capitalist State to transform itself into a Servile State. - -I propose to show that this comes about from the fact that not a -_Distributive_ but a _Collectivist_ solution is the easiest for a -Capitalist State to aim at, and that yet, in the very act of attempting -_Collectivism_, what results is not Collectivism at all, but the servitude -of the many, and the confirmation in their present privilege of the few; -that is, the Servile State. - -* * * * * - -Men to whom the institution of slavery is abhorrent propose for the remedy -of Capitalism one of two reforms. - -Either they would put property into the hands of most citizens, so dividing -land and capital that a determining number of families in the State were -possessed of the means of production; or they would put those means of -production into the hands of the political officers of the community, to be -held in trust for the advantage of all. - -The first solution may be called the attempted establishment of the -/Distributive State/. The second may be called the attempted establishment -of the /Collectivist State/. - -Those who favour the first course are the Conservatives or Traditionalists. -They are men who respect and would, if possible, preserve the old forms of -Christian European life. They know that property was thus distributed -throughout the State during the happiest periods of our past history; they -also know that where it is properly distributed to-day, you have greater -social sanity and ease than elsewhere. In general, those who would -re-establish, if possible, the Distributive State in the place of, and as a -remedy for, the vices and unrest of Capitalism, are men concerned with -known realities, and having for their ideal a condition of society which -experience has tested and proved both stable and good. They are then, of -the two schools of reformers, the more _practical_ in the sense that they -deal more than do the Collectivists (called also Socialists) with things -which either are or have been in actual existence. But they are less -practical in another sense (as we shall see in a moment) from the fact that -the stage of the disease with which they are dealing does not readily lend -itself to such a reaction as they propose. - -The Collectivist, on the other hand, proposes to put land and capital into -the hands of the political officers of the community, and this on the -understanding that they shall hold such land and capital in trust for the -advantage of the community. In making this proposal he is evidently dealing -with a state of things hitherto imaginary, and his ideal is not one that -has been tested by experience, nor one of which our race and history can -furnish instances. In this sense, therefore, he is the _less_ practical of -the two reformers. His ideal cannot be discovered in any past, known, and -recorded phase of our society. We cannot examine Socialism in actual -working, nor can we say (as we can say of well-divided property): "On such -and such an occasion, in such and such a period of European history, -Collectivism was established and produced both stability and happiness in -society." - -In this sense, therefore, the Collectivist is far less practical than the -reformer who desires well-distributed property. - -On the other hand, there is a sense in which this Socialist is more -practical than that other type of reformer, from the fact that the stage of -the disease into which we have fallen apparently admits of his remedy with -less shock than it admits of a reaction towards well-divided property. - -For example: the operation of buying out some great tract of private -ownership to-day (as a railway or a harbour company) with public funds, -continuing its administration by publicly paid officials and converting its -revenue to public use, is a thing with which we are familiar and which -seemingly might be indefinitely multiplied. Individual examples of such -transformation of waterworks, gas, tramways, from a Capitalist to a -Collectivist basis are common, and the change does not disturb any -fundamental thing in our society. When a private Water company or Tramway -line is bought by some town and worked thereafter in the interests of the -public, the transaction is effected without any perceptible friction, -disturbs the life of no private citizen, and seems in every way normal to -the society in which it takes place. - -Upon the contrary, the attempt to create a large number of shareholders in -such enterprises and artificially to substitute many partners, distributed -throughout a great number of the population, in the place of the original -few capitalist owners, would prove lengthy and at every step would arouse -opposition, would create disturbance, would work at an expense of great -friction, and would be imperilled by the power of the new and many owners -to sell again to a few. - -In a word, the man who desires to re-establish property as an institution -normal to most citizens in the State is _working against the grain_ of our -existing Capitalist society, while a man who desires to establish -Socialism--that is Collectivism--is working _with_ the grain of that -society. The first is like a physician who should say to a man whose limbs -were partially atrophied from disuse: "Do this and that, take such and such -exercise, and you will recover the use of your limbs." The second is like a -physician who should say: "You cannot go on as you are. Your limbs are -atrophied from lack of use. Your attempt to conduct yourself as though they -were not is useless and painful; you had better make up your mind to be -wheeled about in a fashion consonant to your disease." The Physician is the -Reformer, his Patient the Proletariat. - -It is not the purpose of this book to show how and under what difficulties -a condition of well-divided property might be restored and might take the -place (even in England) of that Capitalism which is now no longer either -stable or tolerable; but for the purposes of contrast and to emphasise my -argument I will proceed, before showing how the Collectivist unconsciously -makes for the Servile State, to show what difficulties surround the -Distributive solution and why, therefore, the Collectivist solution appeals -so much more readily to men living under Capitalism. - -* * * * * - -If I desire to substitute a number of small owners for a few large ones in -some particular enterprise, how shall I set to work? - -I might boldly confiscate and redistribute at a blow. But by what process -should I choose the new owners? Even supposing that there was some -machinery whereby the justice of the new distribution could be assured, how -could I avoid the enormous and innumerable separate acts of injustice that -would attach to general redistributions? To say "none shall own" and to -confiscate is one thing; to say "all should own" and apportion ownership is -another. Action of this kind would so disturb the whole network of economic -relations as to bring ruin at once to the whole body politic, and -particularly to the smaller interests indirectly affected. In a society -such as ours a catastrophe falling upon the State from outside might -indirectly do good by making such a redistribution possible. But no one -working from within the State could provoke that catastrophe without -ruining his own cause. - -If, then, I proceed more slowly and more rationally and canalise the -economic life of society so that small property shall gradually be built up -within it, see against what forces of inertia and custom I have to work -to-day in a Capitalist society! - -If I desire to benefit small savings at the expense of large, I must -reverse the whole economy under which interest is paid upon deposits -to-day. It is far easier to save £100 out of a revenue of £1,000 than to -save £10 out of a revenue of £100. It is infinitely easier to save £10 out -of a revenue of £100 than £5 out of a revenue of £50. To build up small -property through thrift when once the Mass have fallen into the proletarian -trough is impossible unless you deliberately subsidise small savings, -offering them a reward which, in competition, they could never obtain; and -to do this the whole vast arrangement of credit must be worked backwards. -Or, let the policy be pursued of penalising undertakings with few owners, -of heavily taxing large blocks of shares and of subsidising with the -produce small holders in proportion to the smallness of their holding. Here -again you are met with the difficulty of a vast majority who cannot even -bid for the smallest share. - -One might multiply instances of the sort indefinitely, but the strongest -force against the distribution of ownership in a society already permeated -with Capitalist modes of thought is still the moral one: Will men want to -own? Will officials, administrators, and lawmakers be able to shake off the -power which under Capitalism seems normal to the rich? If I approach, for -instance, the works of one of our great Trusts, purchase it with public -money, bestow, even as a gift, the shares thereof to its workmen, can I -count upon any tradition of property in their midst which will prevent -their squandering the new wealth? Can I discover any relics of the -co-operative instinct among such men? Could I get managers and organisers -to take a group of poor men seriously or to serve them as they would serve -rich men? Is not the whole psychology of a Capitalist society divided -between the proletarian mass which thinks in terms not of property but of -"employment," and the few owners who are alone familiar with the machinery -of administration? - -I have touched but very briefly and superficially upon this matter, because -it needs no elaboration. Though it is evident that with a sufficient will -and a sufficient social vitality property could be restored, it is evident -that all efforts to restore it have in a Capitalist society such as our own -a note of oddity, of doubtful experiment, of being uncoordinated with other -social things around them, which marks the heavy handicap under which any -such attempt must proceed. It is like recommending elasticity to the aged. - -On the other hand, the Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in -appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to -replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and -thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites -which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of -just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed -among men wherever the blight of it has spread. - -So true is all this that the stupider kind of Collectivist will often talk -of a "Capitalist phase" of society as the necessary precedent to a -"Collectivist phase." A trust or monopoly is welcomed because it "furnishes -a mode of transition from private to public ownership." Collectivism -promises employment to the great mass who think of production only in terms -of employment. It promises to its workmen the security which a great and -well-organised industrial Capitalist unit (like one of our railways) can -give through a system of pensions, regular promotion, etc., but that -security vastly increased through the fact that it is the State and not a -mere unit of the State which guarantees it. Collectivism would administer, -would pay wages, would promote, would pension off, would fine--and all the -rest of it--exactly as the Capitalist State does to-day. The proletarian, -when the Collectivist (or Socialist) State is put before him, perceives -nothing in the picture save certain ameliorations of his present position. -Who can imagine that if, say, two of our great industries, Coal and -Railways, were handed over to the State tomorrow, the armies of men -organised therein would find any change in the character of their lives, -save in some increase of security and possibly in a very slight increase of -earnings? - -The whole scheme of Collectivism presents, so far as the proletarian mass -of a Capitalist State is concerned, nothing unknown at all, but a promise -of some increment in wages and a certainty of far greater ease of mind. - -To that small minority of a Capitalist society which owns the means of -production, Collectivism will of course appear as an enemy, but, even so, -it is an enemy which they understand and an enemy with whom they can treat -in terms common both to that enemy and to themselves. If, for instance, the -State proposes to take over such and such a trust now paying 4 per cent. -and believes that under State management it will make the trust pay 5 per -cent. then the transference takes the form of a business proposition: the -State is no harder to the Capitalists taken over than was Mr Yerkes to the -Underground. Again, the State, having greater credit and longevity, can (it -would seem)[5] "buy out" any existing Capitalist body upon favourable -terms. Again, the discipline by which the State would enforce its rules -upon the proletariat it employed would be the same rules as those by which -the Capitalist imposes discipline in his own interests to-day. - -There is in the whole scheme which proposes to transform the Capitalist -into the Collectivist State no element of reaction, the use of no term with -which a Capitalist society is not familiar, the appeal to no instinct, -whether of cowardice, greed, apathy, or mechanical regulation, with which a -Capitalist community is not amply familiar. - -In general, if modern Capitalist England were made by magic a State of -small owners, we should all suffer an enormous revolution. We should marvel -at the insolence of the poor, at the laziness of the contented, at the -strange diversities of task, at the rebellious, vigorous personalities -discernible upon every side. But if this modern Capitalist England could, -by a process sufficiently slow to allow for the readjustment of individual -interests, be transformed into a Collectivist State, the apparent change at -the end of that transition would not be conspicuous to the most of us, and -the transition itself should have met with no shocks that theory can -discover. The insecure and hopeless margin below the regularly paid ranks -of labour would have disappeared into isolated workplaces of a penal kind: -we should hardly miss them. Many incomes now involving considerable duties -to the State would have been replaced by incomes as large or larger, -involving much the same duties and bearing only the newer name of salaries. -The small shop-keeping class would find itself in part absorbed under -public schemes at a salary, in part engaged in the old work of distribution -at secure incomes; and such small owners as are left, of boats, of farms, -even of machinery, would perhaps know the new state of things into which -they had survived through nothing more novel than some increase in the -irritating system of inspection and of onerous petty taxation: they are -already fairly used to both. - -This picture of the natural transition from Capitalism to Collectivism -seems so obvious that many Collectivists in a generation immediately past -believed that nothing stood between them and the realisation of their ideal -save the unintelligence of mankind. They had only to argue and expound -patiently and systematically for the great transformation to become -possible. They had only to continue arguing and expounding for it at last -to be realised. - -I say, "of the last generation." To-day that simple and superficial -judgment is getting woefully disturbed. The most sincere and single-minded -of Collectivists cannot but note that the practical effect of their -propaganda is not an approach towards the Collectivist State at all, but -towards something very different. It is becoming more and more evident that -with every new reform--and those reforms commonly promoted by particular -Socialists, and in a puzzled way blessed by Socialists in general--another -state emerges more and more clearly. It is becoming increasingly certain -that the attempted transformation of Capitalism into Collectivism is -resulting not in Collectivism at all, but in some third thing which the -Collectivist never dreamt of, or the Capitalist either; and that third -thing is the /Servile/ State: a State, that is, in which the mass of men -shall be constrained _by law_ to labour to the profit of a minority, but, -as the price of such constraint, shall enjoy a security which the old -Capitalism did not give them. - -Why is the apparently simple and direct action of Collectivist reform -diverted into so unexpected a channel? And in what new laws and -institutions does modern England in particular and industrial society in -general show that this new form of the State is upon us? - -To these two questions I will attempt an answer in the two concluding -divisions of this book. - - - - -Section Eight -The Reformers and Reformed Are Alike Making for the Servile State - - -I propose in this section to show how the three interests which between -them account for nearly the whole of the forces making for social change in -modern England are all necessarily drifting towards the Servile State. - -Of these three interests the first two represent the Reformers--the third -the people to be Reformed. - -These three interests are, first, the _Socialist_, who is the theoretical -reformer working along the line of least resistance; secondly, the -"_Practical Man_" who as a "practical" reformer depends on his shortness of -sight, and is therefore to-day a powerful factor; while the third is that -great proletarian mass for whom the change is being effected, and on whom -it is being imposed. What _they_ are most likely to accept, the way in -which they will react upon new institutions is the most important factor of -all, for _they_ are the material with and upon which the work is being -done. - -* * * * * - -(1) Of the _Socialist_ Reformer: - -I say that men attempting to achieve Collectivism or Socialism as the -remedy for the evils of the Capitalist State find themselves drifting not -towards a Collectivist State at all, but towards a Servile State. - -The Socialist movement, the first of the three factors in this drift, is -itself made up of two kinds of men: there is (_a_) the man who regards the -public ownership of the means of production (and the consequent compulsion -of all citizens to work under the direction of the State) as the only -feasible solution of our modern social ills. There is also (_b_) the man -who loves the Collectivist ideal in itself, who does not pursue it so much -because it is a solution of modern Capitalism, as because it is an ordered -and regular form of society which appeals to him in itself. He loves to -consider the ideal of a State in which land and capital shall be held by -public officials who shall order other men about and so preserve them from -the consequences of _their_ vice, ignorance, and folly. - -These types are perfectly distinct, in many respects antagonistic, and -between them they cover the whole Socialist movement. - -Now imagine either of these men at issue with the existing state of -Capitalist society and attempting to transform it. Along what line of least -resistance will either be led? - -* * * * * - -(_a_) The first type will begin by demanding the confiscation of the means -of production from the hands of their present owners, and the vesting of -them in the State. But wait a moment. That demand is an exceedingly hard -thing to accomplish. The present owners have between them and confiscation -a stony moral barrier. It is what _most_ men would call the moral basis of -property (the instinct that property is a _right_), and what _all_ men -would admit to be at least a deeply rooted tradition. Again, they have -behind them the innumerable complexities of modern ownership. - -To take a very simple case. Decree that all common lands enclosed since so -late a date as 1760 shall revert to the public. There you have a very -moderate case and a very defensible one. But conceive for a moment how many -small freeholds, what a nexus of obligation and benefit spread over -millions, what thousands of exchanges, what purchases made upon the -difficult savings of small men such a measure would wreck! It is -conceivable, for, in the moral sphere, society can do anything to society; -but it would bring crashing down with it twenty times the wealth involved -and all the secure credit of our community. In a word, the thing is, in the -conversational use of that term, impossible. So your best type of Socialist -reformer is led to an expedient which I will here only mention--as it must -be separately considered at length later on account of its fundamental -importance--the expedient of "_buying out_" the present owner. - -It is enough to say in this place that the attempt to "buy out" without -confiscation is based upon an economic error. This I shall prove in its -proper place. For the moment I assume it and pass on to the rest of my -reformer's action. - -He does not confiscate, then; at the most he "buys out" (or attempts to -"buy out") certain sections of the means of production. - -But this action by no means covers the whole of his motive. By definition -the man is out to cure what he sees to be the great immediate evils of -Capitalist society. He is out to cure the destitution which it causes in -great multitudes and the harrowing insecurity which it imposes upon all. He -is out to substitute for Capitalist society a society in which men shall -all be fed, clothed, housed, and in which men shall not live in a perpetual -jeopardy of their housing, clothing, and food. - -Well, there is a way of achieving that without confiscation. - -This reformer rightly thinks that the ownership of the means of production -by a few has caused the evils which arouse his indignation and pity. But -they have only been so caused on account of a combination of such limited -ownership with universal freedom. The combination of the two is the very -definition of the Capitalist State. It is difficult indeed to dispossess -the possessors. It is by no means so difficult (as we shall see again when -we are dealing with the mass whom these changes will principally affect) to -modify the factor of freedom. - -You can say to the Capitalist: "I desire to dispossess you, and meanwhile I -am determined that your employees shall live tolerable lives." The -Capitalist replies: "I refuse to be dispossessed, and it is, short of -catastrophe, impossible to dispossess me. But if you will define the -relation between my employees and myself, I will undertake particular -responsibilities due to my position. Subject the proletarian, as a -proletarian, and because he is a proletarian, to special laws. Clothe me, -the Capitalist, as a Capitalist, and because I am a Capitalist, with -special converse duties under those laws. I will faithfully see that they -are obeyed; I will compel my employees to obey them, and I will undertake -the new role imposed upon me by the State. Nay, I will go further, and I -will say that such a novel arrangement will make my own profits perhaps -larger and certainly more secure." - -This idealist social reformer, therefore, finds the current of his demand -canalised. As to one part of it, confiscation, it is checked and barred; as -to the other, securing human conditions for the proletariat, the gates are -open. Half the river is dammed by a strong weir, but there is a sluice, and -that sluice can be lifted. Once lifted, the whole force of the current will -run through the opportunity so afforded it; there will it scour and deepen -its channel; there will the main stream learn to run. - -To drop the metaphor, all those things in the true Socialist's demand which -are compatible with the Servile State can certainly be achieved. The first -steps towards them are already achieved. They are of such a nature that -upon them can be based a further advance in the same direction, and the -whole Capitalist State can be rapidly and easily transformed into the -Servile State, satisfying in its transformation the more immediate claims -and the more urgent demands of the social reformer whose ultimate objective -indeed may be the public ownership of capital and land, but whose driving -power is a burning pity for the poverty and peril of the masses. - -When the transformation is complete there will be no ground left, nor any -demand or necessity, for public ownership. The reformer only asked for it -in order to secure security and sufficiency: he has obtained his demand. - -Here are security and sufficiency achieved by another and much easier -method, consonant with and proceeding from the Capitalist phase immediately -preceding it: there is no need to go further. - -In this way the Socialist whose motive is human good and not mere -organisation is being shepherded in spite of himself _away_ from his -Collectivist ideal and _towards_ a society in which the possessors shall -remain possessed, the dispossessed shall remain dispossessed, in which the -mass of men shall still work for the advantage of a few, and in which those -few shall still enjoy the surplus values produced by labour, but in which -the special evils of insecurity and insufficiency, in the main the product -of freedom, have been eliminated by the destruction of freedom. - -At the end of the process you will have two kinds of men, the owners -economically free, and controlling to their peace and to the guarantee of -their livelihood the economically unfree non-owners. But that is the -Servile State. - -* * * * * - -(_b_) The second type of socialist reformer may be dealt with more briefly. -In him the exploitation of man by man excites no indignation. Indeed, he is -not of a type to which indignation or any other lively passion is familiar. -Tables, statistics, an exact framework for life--these afford him the food -that satisfies his moral appetite; the occupation most congenial to him is -the "running" of men: as a machine is run. - -To such a man the Collectivist ideal particularly appeals. - -It is orderly in the extreme. All that human and organic complexity which -is the colour of any vital society offends him by its infinite -differentiation. He is disturbed by multitudinous things; and the prospect -of a vast bureaucracy wherein the whole of life shall be scheduled and -appointed to certain simple schemes deriving from the coordinate work of -public clerks and marshalled by powerful heads of departments gives his -small stomach a final satisfaction. - -Now this man, like the other, would prefer to begin with public property in -capital and land, and upon that basis to erect the formal scheme which so -suits his peculiar temperament. (It need hardly be said that in his vision -of a future society he conceives of himself as the head of at least a -department and possibly of the whole State--but that is by the way.) But -while he would prefer to begin with a Collectivist scheme ready-made, he -finds in practice that he cannot do so. He would have to confiscate just as -the more hearty Socialist would; and if that act is very difficult to the -man burning at the sight of human wrongs, how much more difficult is it to -a man impelled by no such motive force and directed by nothing more intense -than a mechanical appetite for regulation? - -He cannot confiscate or begin to confiscate. At the best he will "buy out" -the Capitalist. - -Now, in his case, as in the case of the more human Socialist, "buying out" -is, as I shall show in its proper place, a system impossible of general -application. - -But all those other things for which such a man cares much more than he -does for the socialisation of the means of production--tabulation, detailed -administration of men, the co-ordination of many efforts under one -schedule, the elimination of all private power to react against his -Department, all these are immediately obtainable without disturbing the -existing arrangement of society. With him, precisely as with the other -socialist, what he desires can be reached without any dispossession of the -few existing possessors. He has but to secure the registration of the -proletariat; next to ensure that neither they in the exercise of their -freedom, nor the employer in the exercise of his, can produce insufficiency -or insecurity--and he is content. Let laws exist which make the proper -housing, feeding, clothing, and recreation of the proletarian mass be -incumbent upon the possessing class, and the observance of such rules be -imposed, by inspection and punishment, upon those whom he pretends to -benefit, and all that he really cares for will be achieved. - -To such a man the Servile State is hardly a thing towards which he drifts, -it is rather a tolerable alternative to his ideal Collectivist State, which -alternative he is quite prepared to accept and regards favourably. Already -the greater part of such reformers who, a generation ago, would have called -themselves "Socialists" are now less concerned with any scheme for -socialising Capital and Land than with innumerable schemes actually -existing, some of them possessing already the force of laws, for -regulating, "running," and drilling the proletariat without trenching by an -inch upon the privilege in implements, stores, and land enjoyed by the -small Capitalist class. - -The so-called "Socialist" of this type has not fallen into the Servile -State by a miscalculation. He has fathered it; he welcomes its birth, he -foresees his power over its future. - -So much for the Socialist movement, which a generation ago proposed to -transform our Capitalist society into one where the community should be the -universal owner and all men equally economically free or unfree under its -tutelage. To-day their ideal has failed, and of the two sources whence -their energy proceeded, the one is reluctantly, the other gladly, -acquiescent in the advent of a society which is not Socialist at all but -Servile. - -* * * * * - -(2) Of the _Practical_ Reformer: - -There is another type of Reformer, one who prides himself on _not_ being a -socialist, and one of the greatest weight to-day. He also is making for the -Servile State. This second factor in the change is the "Practical Man"; and -this fool, on account of his great numbers and determining influence in the -details of legislation, must be carefully examined. - -It is your "Practical Man" who says: "Whatever you theorists and -doctrinaires may hold with regard to this proposal (which I support), -though it may offend some abstract dogma of yours, yet _in practice_ you -must admit that it does good. If you had _practical_ experience of the -misery of the Jones' family, or had done _practical_ work yourself in -Pudsey, you would have seen that a _practical_ man," etc. - -It is not difficult to discern that the Practical Man in social reform is -exactly the same animal as the Practical Man in every other department of -human energy, and may be discovered suffering from the same twin -disabilities which stamp the Practical Man where-ever found: these twin -disabilities are an inability to define his own first principles and an -inability to follow the consequences proceeding from his own action. Both -these disabilities proceed from one simple and deplorable form of -impotence, the inability to think. - -Let us help the Practical Man in his weakness and do a little thinking for -him. - -As a social reformer he has of course (though he does not know it) first -principles and dogmas like all the rest of us, and _his_ first principles -and dogmas are exactly the same as those which his intellectual superiors -hold in the matter of social reform. The two things intolerable to him as a -decent citizen (though a very stupid human being) are _insufficiency_ and -_insecurity_. When he was "working" in the slums of Pudsey or raiding the -proletarian Jones's from the secure base of Toynbee Hall, what shocked the -worthy man most was "unemployment" and "destitution": that is, insecurity -and insufficiency in flesh and blood. - -Now, if the Socialist who has thought out his case, whether as a mere -organiser or as a man hungering and thirsting after justice, is led away -from Socialism and towards the Servile State by the force of modern things -in England, how much more easily do you not think the "Practical Man" will -be conducted towards that same Servile State, like any donkey to his -grazing ground? To those dull and shortsighted eyes the immediate solution -which even the beginnings of the Servile State propose are what a declivity -is to a piece of brainless matter. The piece of brainless matter rolls down -the declivity, and the Practical Man lollops from Capitalism to the Servile -State with the same inevitable ease. Jones has not got enough. If you give -him something in charity, that something will be soon consumed, and then -Jones will again not have enough. Jones has been seven weeks out of work. -If you get him work "under our unorganised and wasteful system, etc.," he -may lose it just as he lost his first jobs. The slums of Pudsey, as the -Practical Man knows by Practical experience, are often unemployable. Then -there are "the ravages of drink": more fatal still the dreadful habit -mankind has of forming families and breeding children. The worthy fellow -notes that "as a practical matter of fact such men do not work unless you -make them." - -He does not, because he cannot, coordinate all these things. He knows -nothing of a society in which free men were once owners, nor of the -co-operative and instinctive institutions for the protection of ownership -which such a society spontaneously breeds. He "takes the world as he finds -it"--and the consequence is that whereas men of greater capacity may admit -with different degrees of reluctance the general principles of the Servile -State, _he_, the Practical Man, positively gloats on every new detail in -the building up of that form of society. And the destruction of freedom by -inches (though he does not see it to be the destruction of freedom) is the -one panacea so obvious that he marvels at the doctrinaires who resist or -suspect the process. - -It has been necessary to waste so much time on this deplorable individual -because the circumstances of our generation give him a peculiar power. -Under the conditions of modern exchange a man of that sort enjoys great -advantages. He is to be found as he never was in any other society before -our own, possessed of wealth, and political as never was any such citizen -until our time. Of history with all its lessons; of the great schemes of -philosophy and religion, of human nature itself he is blank. - -The Practical Man left to himself would not produce the Servile State. He -would not produce anything but a welter of anarchic restrictions which -would lead at last to some kind of revolt. - -Unfortunately, he is not left to himself. He is but the ally or flanking -party of great forces which he does nothing to oppose, and of particular -men, able and prepared for the work of general change, who use him with -gratitude and contempt. Were he not so numerous in modern England, and, -under the extraordinary conditions of a Capitalist State, so economically -powerful, I would have neglected him in this analysis. As it is, we may -console ourselves by remembering that the advent of the Servile State, with -its powerful organisation and necessity for lucid thought in those who -govern, will certainly eliminate him. - -* * * * * - -Our reformers, then, both those who think and those who do not, both those -who are conscious of the process and those who are unconscious of it, are -making directly for the Servile State. - -* * * * * - -(3) What of the third factor? What of the people about to be reformed? What -of the millions upon whose carcasses the reformers are at work, and who are -the subject of the great experiment? Do they tend, as material, to accept -or to reject that transformation from free proletarianism to servitude -which is the argument of this book? - -The question is an important one to decide, for upon whether the material -is suitable or unsuitable for the work to which it is subjected, depends -the success of every experiment making for the Servile State. - -The mass of men in the Capitalist State is proletarian. As a matter of -definition, the actual number of the proletariat and the proportion that -number bears to the total number of families in the State may vary, but -must be sufficient to determine the general character of the State before -we can call that State _Capitalist_. - -But, as we have seen, the Capitalist State is not a stable, and therefore -not a permanent, condition of society. It has proved ephemeral; and upon -that very account the proletariat in any Capitalist State retains to a -greater or less degree some memories of a state of society in which its -ancestors were possessors of property and economically free. - -The strength of this memory or tradition is the first element we have to -bear in mind in our problem, when we examine how far a particular -proletariat, such as the English proletariat to-day, is ready to accept the -Servile State, which would condemn it to a perpetual loss of property and -of all the free habit which property engenders. - -Next be it noted that under conditions of freedom the Capitalist class may -be entered by the more cunning or the more fortunate of the proletariat -class. Recruitment of the kind was originally sufficiently common in the -first development of Capitalism to be a standing feature in society and to -impress the imagination of the general. Such recruitment is still possible. -The proportion which it bears to the whole proletariat, the chance which -each member of the proletariat may think he has of escaping from his -proletarian condition in a particular phase of Capitalism such as is ours -to-day, is the second factor in the problem. - -The third factor, and by far the greatest of all, is the appetite of the -dispossessed for that security and sufficiency of which Capitalism, with -its essential condition of freedom, has deprived them. - -Now let us consider the interplay of these three factors in the English -proletariat as we actually know it at this moment. That proletariat is -certainly the great mass of the State: it covers about nineteen-twentieths -of the population--if we exclude Ireland, where, as I shall point out in my -concluding pages, the reaction against Capitalism, and therefore against -its development towards a Servile State, is already successful. - -* * * * * - -As to the first factor, it has changed very rapidly within the memory of -men now living. The traditional rights of property are still strong in the -minds of the English poor. All the moral connotations of that right are -familiar to them. They are familiar with the conception of theft as a -wrong; they are tenacious of any scraps of property which they may acquire. -They could all explain what is meant by ownership, by legacy, by exchange, -and by gift, and even by contract. There is not one but could put himself -in the position, mentally, of an owner. - -But the actual experience of ownership, and the effect which that -experience has upon character and upon one's view of the State is a very -different matter. Within the memory of people still living a sufficient -number of Englishmen were owning (as small freeholders, small masters, -etc.) to give to the institution of property coupled with freedom a very -vivid effect upon the popular mind. More than this, there was a living -tradition proceeding from the lips of men who could still bear living -testimony to the relics of a better state of things. I have myself spoken, -when I was a boy, to old labourers in the neighbourhood of Oxford who had -risked their skins in armed protest against the enclosure of certain -commons, and who had of course suffered imprisonment by a wealthy judge as -the reward of their courage; and I have myself spoken in Lancashire to old -men who could retrace for me, either from their personal experience the -last phases of small ownership in the textile trade, or, from what their -fathers had told them, the conditions of a time when small and well-divided -ownership in cottage looms was actually common. - -All that has passed. The last chapter of its passage has been singularly -rapid. Roughly speaking, it is the generation brought up under the -Education Acts of the last forty years which has grown up definitely and -hopelessly proletarian. The present instinct, use, and meaning of property -is lost to it: and this has had two very powerful effects, each strongly -inclining our modern wage-earners to ignore the old barriers which lay -between a condition of servitude and a condition of freedom. The first -effect is this: that property is no longer what they seek, nor what they -think obtainable for themselves. The second effect is that they regard the -possessors of property as a class apart, whom they always must ultimately -obey, often envy, and sometimes hate; whose moral right to so singular a -position most of them would hesitate to concede, and many of them would now -strongly deny, but whose position they, at any rate, accept as a known and -permanent social fact, the origins of which they have forgotten, and the -foundations of which they believe to be immemorial. - -To sum up: The attitude of the proletariat in England to-day (the attitude -of the overwhelming majority, that is, of English families) towards -property and towards that freedom which is alone obtainable through -property is no longer an attitude of experience or of expectation. They -think of themselves as wage-earners. To increase the weekly stipend of the -wage-earner is an object which they vividly appreciate and pursue. To make -him cease to be a wage earner is an object that would seem to them entirely -outside the realities of life. - -What of the second factor, the gambling chance which the Capitalist system, -with its necessary condition of freedom, of the legal power to bargain -fully, and so forth, permits to the proletarian of escaping from his -proletariat surroundings? - -Of this gambling chance and the effect it has upon men's minds we may say -that, while it has not disappeared, it has very greatly lost in force -during the last forty years. One often meets men who tell one, whether they -are speaking in defence of or against the Capitalist system, that it still -blinds the proletarian to any common consciousness of class, because the -proletarian still has the example before him of members of his class, whom -he has known, rising (usually by various forms of villainy) to the position -of capitalist. But when one goes down among the working men themselves, one -discovers that the hope of such a change in the mind of any individual -worker is now exceedingly remote. Millions of men in great groups of -industry, notably in the transport industry and in the mines, have quite -given up such an expectation. Tiny as the chance ever was, exaggerated as -the hopes in a lottery always are, that tiny chance has fallen in the -general opinion of the workers to be negligible, and that hope which a -lottery breeds is extinguished. The proletarian now regards himself as -definitely proletarian, nor destined within human likelihood to be anything -but proletarian. - -* * * * * - -These two factors, then, the memory of an older condition of economic -freedom, and the effect of a hope individuals might entertain of escaping -from the wage-earning class, the two factors which might act most strongly -_against_ the acceptation of the Servile State by that class, have so -fallen in value that they offer but little opposition to the third factor -in the situation which is making so strongly _for_ the Servile State, and -which consists in the necessity all men acutely feel for sufficiency and -for security. It is this third factor alone which need be seriously -considered to-day, when we ask ourselves how far the material upon which -social reform is working, that is, the masses of the people, may be ready -to accept the change. - -The thing may be put in many ways. I will put it in what I believe to be -the most conclusive of all. - -If you were to approach those millions of families now living at a wage, -with the proposal for a contract of service for life, guaranteeing them -employment at what each regarded as his usual full wage, how many would -refuse? - -Such a contract would, of course, involve a loss of freedom: a -life-contract of the kind is, to be accurate, no contract at all. It is the -negation of contract and the acceptation of status. It would lay the man -that undertook it under an obligation of forced labour, coterminous and -coincident with his power to labour. It would be a permanent renunciation -of his right (if such a right exists) to the surplus values created by his -labour. If we ask ourselves how many men, or rather how many families, -would prefer freedom (with its accompaniments of certain insecurity and -possible insufficiency) to such a life-contract, no one can deny that the -answer is: "Very few would refuse it." That is the key to the whole matter. - -What proportion would refuse it no one can determine; but I say that even -as a voluntary offer, and not as a compulsory obligation, a contract of -this sort which would for the future destroy contract and re-erect status -of a servile sort would be thought a boon by the mass of the proletariat -to-day. - -Now take the truth from another aspect--by considering it thus from one -point of view and from another we can appreciate it best--Of what are the -mass of men now most afraid in a Capitalist State? Not of the punishments -that can be inflicted by a Court of Law, but of "the sack." - -You may ask a man why he does not resist such and such a legal infamy; why -he permits himself to be the victim of fines and deductions from which the -Truck Acts specifically protect him; why he cannot assert his opinion in -this or that matter; why he has accepted, without a blow, such and such an -insult. - -Some generations ago a man challenged to tell you why he forswore his -manhood in any particular regard would have answered you that it was -because he feared punishment at the hands of the law; to-day he will tell -you that it is because he fears unemployment. - -Private law has for the second time in our long European story overcome -public law, and the sanctions which the Capitalist can call to the aid of -his private rule, by the action of his private will, are stronger than -those which the public Courts can impose. - -In the seventeenth century a man feared to go to Mass lest the judges -should punish him. To-day a man fears to speak in favour of some social -theory which he holds to be just and true lest his master should punish -him. To deny the rule of public powers once involved public punishments -which most men dreaded, though some stood out. To deny the rule of private -powers involves to-day a private punishment against the threat of which -very few indeed dare to stand out. - -Look at the matter from yet another aspect. A law is passed (let us -suppose) which increases the total revenue of a wage-earner, or guarantees -him against the insecurity of his position in some small degree. The -administration of that law requires, upon the one hand, a close inquisition -into the man's circumstances by public officials, and, upon the other hand, -the administration of its benefits by that particular Capitalist or group -of Capitalists whom the wage-earner serves to enrich. Do the Servile -conditions attaching to this material benefit prevent a proletarian in -England to-day from preferring the benefit to freedom? It is notorious that -they do not. - -No matter from what angle you approach the business, the truth is always -the same. That great mass of wage-earners upon which our society now -reposes understands as a present good all that will increase even to some -small amount their present revenue and all that may guarantee them against -those perils of insecurity to which they are perpetually subject. They -understand and welcome a good of this kind, and they are perfectly willing -to pay for that good the corresponding price of control and -enregimentation, exercised in gradually increasing degree by those who are -their paymasters. - -* * * * * - -It would be easy by substituting superficial for fundamental things, or -even by proposing certain terms and phrases to be used in the place of -terms and phrases now current it would be easy, I say, by such methods to -ridicule or to oppose the prime truths which I am here submitting. They -none the less remain truths. - -Substitute for the term "employee" in one of our new laws the term "serf," -even do so mild a thing as to substitute the traditional term "master" for -the word "employer," and the blunt words might breed revolt. Impose of a -sudden the full conditions of a Servile State upon modern England, and it -would certainly breed revolt. But my point is that when the foundations of -the thing have to be laid and the first great steps taken, there is no -revolt; on the contrary, there is acquiescence and for the most part -gratitude upon the part of the poor. After the long terrors imposed upon -them through a freedom unaccompanied by property, they see, at the expense -of losing a mere legal freedom, the very real prospect of _having enough_ -and _not losing it_. - -All forces, then, are making for the Servile State in this the final phase -of our evil Capitalist society in England. The generous reformer is -canalised towards it; the ungenerous one finds it a very mirror of his -ideal; the herd of "practical" men meet at every stage in its inception the -"practical" steps which they expected and demanded; while that proletarian -mass upon whom the experiment is being tried have lost the tradition of -property and of freedom which might resist the change, and are most -powerfully inclined to its acceptance by the positive benefits which it -confers. - -It may be objected that however true all this may be, no one can, upon such -theoretical grounds, regard the Servile State as something really -approaching us. We need not believe in its advent (we shall be told) until -we see the first effects of its action. - -To this I answer that the first effects of its action are already apparent. -The Servile State is, in industrial England to-day, no longer a menace but -something in actual existence. It is in process of construction. The first -main lines of it are already plotted out; the cornerstone of it is already -laid. - -To see the truth of this it is enough to consider laws and projects of law, -the first of which we already enjoy, while the last will pass from project -to positive statute in due process of time. - - -Appendix on "Buying-Out" - - -There is an impression abroad among those who propose to expropriate the -Capitalist class for the benefit of the State, but who appreciate the -difficulties in the way of direct confiscation, that by spreading the -process over a sufficient number of years and pursuing it after a certain -fashion bearing all the outward appearances of a purchase, the -expropriation could be effected without the consequences and attendant -difficulties of direct confiscation. In other words, there is an impression -that the State could "buyout" the Capitalist class without their knowing -it, and that in a sort of painless way this class can be slowly conjured -out of existence. - -The impression is held in a confused fashion by most of those who cherish -it, and will not bear a clear analysis. - -It is impossible by any jugglery to "buyout" the universality of the means -of production without confiscation. - -To prove this, consider a concrete case which puts the problem in the -simplest terms:-- - -A community of twenty-two families lives upon the produce of two farms, the -property of only two families out of that twenty-two. - -The remaining twenty families are Proletarian. The two families, with their -ploughs, stores, land, etc., are Capitalist. - -The labour of the twenty proletarian families applied to the land and -capital of these two capitalist families produces 300 measures of wheat, of -which 200 measures, or 10 measures each, form the annual support of the -twenty proletarian families; the remaining 100 measures are the surplus -value retained as rent, interest, and profit by the two Capitalist -families, each of which has thus a yearly income of 50 measures. - -The State proposes to produce, after a certain length of time, a condition -of affairs such that the surplus values shall no longer go to the two -Capitalist families, but shall be distributed to the advantage of the whole -community, while it, the State, shall itself become the unembarrassed owner -of both farms. - -Now capital is accumulated with the object of a certain return as the -reward of accumulation. Instead of spending his money, a man saves it with -the object of retaining as the result of that saving a certain yearly -revenue. The measure of this does not fall in a particular society at a -particular time below a certain level. In other words, if a man cannot get -a certain minimum reward for his accumulation, he will not accumulate but -spend. - -What is called in economics "The Law of Diminishing Returns" acts so that -continual additions to capital, other things being equal (that is, the -methods of production remaining the same), do not provide a corresponding -increase of revenue. A thousand measures of capital applied to a particular -area of natural forces will produce, for instance, 40 measures yearly, or 4 -per cent.; but 2000 measures applied in the same fashion will not produce -80 measures. They will produce more than the thousand measures did, but not -more in proportion; not double. They will produce, say, 60 measures, or 3 -per cent., upon the capital. The action of this universal principle -automatically checks the accumulation of capital when it has reached such a -point that the proportionate return is the least which a man will accept. -If it falls below that he will spend rather than accumulate. The limit of -this minimum in any particular society at any particular time gives the -measure to what we call "_the Effective Desire of Accumulation_." Thus in -England to-day it is a little over 3 per cent. The minimum which limits the -accumulation of capital is a minimum return of about one-thirtieth yearly -upon such capital, and this we may call for shortness the "E.D.A." of our -society at the present time. - -When, therefore, the Capitalist estimates the full value of his -possessions, he counts them in "so many years' purchase."[6] And that means -that he is willing to take in a lump sum down for his possessions so many -times the yearly revenue which he at present enjoys. If his E.D.A. is -one-thirtieth, he will take a lump sum representing thirty times his annual -revenue. - -So far so good. Let us suppose the two Capitalists in our example to have -an E.D.A. of one-thirtieth. They will sell to the State if the State can -put up 3000 measures of wheat. - -Now, of course, the State can do nothing of the kind. The accumulations of -wheat being already in the hands of the Capitalists, and those -accumulations amounting to much less than 3000 measures of wheat, the thing -appears to be a deadlock. - -But it is not a deadlock if the Capitalist is a fool. The State can go to -the Capitalists and say: "Hand me over your farms, and against them I will -give you guarantee that you shall be paid _rather more than_ 100 measures -of wheat a year for the thirty years. In fact, I will pay you half as much -again until these extra payments amount to a purchase of your original -stock." - -Out of what does this extra amount come? Out of the State's power to tax. - -The State can levy a tax upon the profits of both Capitalists A and B, and -pay them the extra with their own money. - -In so simple an example it is evident that this "ringing of the changes" -would be spotted by the victims, and that they would bring against it -precisely the same forces which they would bring against the much simpler -and more straightforward process of immediate confiscation. - -But it is argued that in a complex State, where you are dealing with -myriads of individual Capitalists and thousands of particular forms of -profit, the process can be masked. - -There are two ways in which the State can mask its action (according to -this policy). It can buy out first one small area of land and capital out -of the general taxation and then another, and then another, until the whole -has been transferred; or it can tax with peculiar severity certain trades -which the rest who are left immune will abandon to their ruin, and with the -general taxation plus this special taxation buy out those unfortunate -trades which will, of course, have sunk heavily in value under the attack. - -The second of these tricks will soon be apparent in any society, however -complex; for after one unpopular trade had been selected for attack the -trying on of the same methods in another less unpopular field will at once -rouse suspicion.[7] - -The first method, however, might have some chance of success, at least for -a long time after it was begun, in a highly complex and numerous society -were it not for a certain check which comes in of itself. That check is the -fact that the Capitalist only takes _more than_ his old yearly revenue with -the object of reinvesting the surplus. - -I have a thousand pounds in Brighton railway stock, yielding me 3 per -cent.: £30 a year. The Government asks me to exchange my bit of paper -against another bit of paper guaranteeing the payment of £50 a year, that -is, an extra rate a year, for so many years as will represent over and -above the regular interest paid a purchase of my stock. The Government's -bit of paper promises to pay to the holder £50 a year for, say, -thirty-eight years. I am delighted to make the exchange, not because I am -such a fool as to enjoy the prospect of my property being extinguished at -the end of thirty-eight years, but because I hope to be able to reinvest -the extra £20 every year in something else that will bring me in 3 per -cent. Thus, at the end of the thirty-eight years I shall (or my heirs) be -better off than I was at the beginning of the transaction, and I shall have -enjoyed during its maturing my old £30 a year all the same. - -The State can purchase thus on a small scale by subsidising purchase out of -the general taxation. It can, therefore, play this trick over a small area -and for a short time with success. But the moment this area passes a very -narrow limit the "market for investment" is found to be restricted, Capital -automatically takes alarm, the State can no longer offer its paper -guarantees save at an enhanced price. If it tries to turn the position by -further raising taxation to what Capital regards as "confiscatory" rates, -there will be opposed to its action just the same forces as would be -opposed to frank and open expropriation. - -The matter is one of plain arithmetic, and all the confusion introduced by -the complex mechanism of "finance" can no more change the fundamental and -arithmetical principles involved than can the accumulation of triangles in -an ordnance survey reduce the internal angles of the largest triangle to -less than 180 degrees.[8] In fine: _if you desire to confiscate, you must -confiscate_. - -You cannot outflank the enemy, as Financiers in the city and sharpers on -the racecourse outflank the simpler of mankind, nor can you conduct the -general process of expropriation upon a muddle-headed hope that somehow or -other something will come out of nothing in the end. - -There are, indeed, two ways in which the State could expropriate without -meeting the resistance that must be present against any attempt at -confiscation. But the first of these ways is precarious, the second -insufficient. - -They are as follows:-- - -(1) The State can promise the Capitalist a larger yearly revenue than he is -getting in the expectation that it, the State, can manage the business -better than the Capitalist, or that some future expansion will come to its -aid. In other words, if the State makes a bigger profit out of the thing -than the Capitalist, it can buy out the Capitalist just as a private -individual with a similar business proposition can buy him out. - -But the converse of this is that if the State has calculated badly, or has -bad luck, it would find itself _endowing_ the Capitalists of the future -instead of gradually extinguishing them. - -In this fashion the State could have "socialised" without confiscation the -railways of this country if it had taken them over fifty years ago, -promising the then owners more than they were then obtaining. But if it had -socialised the hansom cab in the nineties, it would now be supporting in -perpetuity that worthy but extinct type the cab-owner (and his children for -ever) at the expense of the community. - -(2) The second way in which the State can expropriate without confiscation -is by annuity. It can say to such Capitalists as have no heirs or care -little for their fate if they have: "You have only got so much time to live -and to enjoy your £30, will you take £50 until you die?" Upon the bargain -being accepted the State will, in process of time, though not immediately -upon the death of the annuitant, become an unembarrassed owner of what had -been the annuitant's share in the means of production. But the area over -which this method can be exercised is a very small one. It is not of itself -a sufficient instrument for the expropriation of any considerable field. - -I need hardly add that as a matter of fact the so-called "Socialist" and -confiscatory measures of our time have nothing to do with the problem here -discussed. The State is indeed confiscating, that is, it is taxing in many -cases in such a fashion as to impoverish the taxpayer and is lessening his -capital rather than shearing his income. But it is not putting the proceeds -into the means of production. It is either using them for immediate -consumption in the shape of new official salaries or handing them over to -another set of Capitalists.[9] - -But these practical considerations of the way in which sham Socialist -experiments are working belong rather to my next section, in which I shall -deal with the actual beginnings of the Servile State in our midst. - - - - -Section Nine -The Servile State Has Begun - - -In this last division of my book I deal with the actual appearance of the -Servile State in certain laws and proposals now familiar to the Industrial -Society of modern England. These are the patent objects, "laws and projects -of laws," which lend stuff to my argument, and show that it is based not -upon a mere deduction, but upon an observation of things. - -Two forms of this proof are evident: first, the laws and proposals which -subject the _Proletariat_ to Servile conditions; next, the fact that the -_Capitalist_, so far from being expropriated by modern "Socialist" -experiments, is being confirmed in his power. - -I take these in their order, and I begin by asking in what statutes or -proposals the Servile State first appeared among us. - -A false conception of our subject might lead one to find the origins of the -Servile State in the restrictions imposed upon certain forms of -manufacture, and the corresponding duties laid upon the Capitalist in the -interest of his workmen. The Factory Laws, as they are in this country, -would seem to offer upon this superficial and erroneous view a starting -point. They do nothing of the kind; and the view _is_ superficial and -erroneous because it neglects the fundamentals of the case. What -distinguishes the Servile State is not the interference of law with the -action of any citizen even in connection with industrial matters. Such -interference may or may not indicate the presence of a Servile status. It -in no way indicates the presence of that status when it forbids a -particular kind of human action to be undertaken by the citizen as a -citizen. - -The legislator says, for instance, "You may pluck roses; but as I notice -that you sometimes scratch yourself, I will put you in prison unless you -cut them with scissors at least 122 millimetres long, and I will appoint -one thousand inspectors to go round the country seeing whether the law is -observed. My brother-in-law shall be at the head of the Department at -£2,000 a year." - -We are all familiar with that type of legislation. We are all familiar with -the arguments for and against it in any particular case. We may regard it -as onerous, futile, or beneficent, or in any other light, according to our -various temperaments. But it does not fall within the category of servile -legislation, because it establishes no distinction between two classes of -citizens, marking off the one as legally distinct from the other by a -criterion of manual labour or of income. - -This is even true of such regulations as those which compel a Cotton Mill, -for instance, to have no less than such and such an amount of cubic space -for each operative, and such and such protection for dangerous machinery. -These laws do not concern themselves with the nature, the amount, or even -the existence of a contract for service. The object, for example, of the -law which compels one to fence off certain types of machinery is simply to -protect human life, regardless of whether the human being so protected is -rich or poor, Capitalist or Proletarian. These laws may in effect work in -our society so that the Capitalist is made responsible for the Proletarian, -but he is not responsible _qua_ Capitalist, nor is the Proletarian -protected _qua_ Proletarian. - -In the same way the law may compel me, if I am a Riparian owner, to put up -a fence of statutory strength wherever the water of my river is of more -than a statutory depth. Now it cannot compel me to do this unless I am the -owner of the land. In a sense, therefore, this might be called the -recognition of my _Status_, because, by the nature of the case, only -landowners can be affected by the law, and landowners would be compelled by -it to safeguard the lives of all, whether they were or were not owners of -land. - -But the category so established would be purely accidental. The object and -method of the law do not concern themselves with a distinction between -citizens. - -A close observer might indeed discover certain points in the Factory laws, -details and phrases, which did distinctly connote the existence of a -Capitalist and of a Proletarian class. But we must take the statutes as a -whole and the order in which they were produced, above all, the general -motive and expressions governing each main statute, in order to judge -whether such examples of interference give us an origin or not. - -The verdict will be that they do not. Such legislation may be oppressive in -any degree or necessary in any degree, but it does not establish status in -the place of contract, and it is not, therefore, servile. - -Neither are those laws servile which in practice attach to the poor and not -to the rich. Compulsory education is in legal theory required of every -citizen for his children. The state of mind which goes with plutocracy -exempts of course all above a certain standard of wealth from this law. But -the law does apply to the universality of the commonwealth, and all -families resident in Great Britain (not in Ireland) are subject to its -provisions. - -These are not origins. A true origin to the legislation I approach comes -later. The first example of servile legislation to be discovered upon the -Statute Book is that which establishes the present form of _Employer's -Liability_. - -I am far from saying that that law was passed, as modern laws are beginning -to be passed, with the direct object of establishing a new status; though -it was passed with some consciousness on the part of the legislator that -such a new status was in existence as a social fact. Its motive was merely -humane, and the relief which it afforded seemed merely necessary at the -time; but it is an instructive example of the way in which a small neglect -of strict doctrine and a slight toleration of anomaly admit great changes -into the State. - -There had existed from all time in every community, and there was founded -upon common sense, the legal doctrine that if one citizen was so placed -with regard to another by contract that he must in the fulfilment of that -contract perform certain services, and if those services accidentally -involved damages to a third party, not the actual perpetrator of the -damage, but he who designed the particular operation leading to it was -responsible. - -The point is subtle, but, as I say, fundamental. It involved no distinction -of status between employer and employed. - -Citizen A offered citizen B a sack of wheat down if citizen B would plough -for him a piece of land which might or might not produce more than a sack -of wheat. - -Of course citizen A expected it would produce more, and was awaiting a -surplus value, or he would not have made the contract with citizen B. But, -at any rate, citizen B put his name to the agreement, and as a free man, -capable of contracting, was correspondingly bound to fulfil it. - -In fulfilling this contract the ploughshare B is driving destroys a pipe -conveying water by agreement through A's land to C. C suffers damage, and -to recover the equivalent of that damage his action in justice and common -sense can only be against A, for B was carrying out a plan and instruction -of which A was the author. C is a third party who had nothing to do with -such a contract and could not possibly have justice save by his chances of -getting it from A, who was the true author of the unintentional loss -inflicted, since he designed the course of work. - -But when the damage is not done to C at all, but to B, who is concerned -with a work the risks of which are known and willingly undertaken, it is -quite another matter. - -Citizen A contracts with citizen B that citizen B, in consideration of a -sack of wheat, shall plough a bit of land. Certain known risks must attach -to that operation. Citizen B, if he is a free man, undertakes those risks -with his eyes open. For instance, he may sprain his wrist in turning the -plough, or one of the horses may kick him while he is having his -bread-and-cheese. If upon such an accident A is compelled to pay damages to -B, a difference of status is at once recognised. B undertook to do work -which, by all the theory of free contract, was, with its risks and its -expense of energy, the equivalent in B's own eyes of a sack of wheat; yet a -law is passed to say that B can have more than that sack of wheat if he is -hurt. - -There is no converse right of A against B. If the employer suffers by such -an accident to the employee, _he_ is not allowed to dock that sack of -wheat, though it was regarded in the contract as the equivalent to a -certain amount of labour to be performed which, as a fact, has not been -performed. A has no action unless B has been _culpably_ negligent or -remiss. In other words, the mere fact that one man is _working_ and the -other not is the fundamental consideration on which the law is built, and -the law says: "You are not a free man making a free contract with all its -consequences. You are a worker, and therefore an inferior: you are an -_employee_; and that _status_ gives you a special position which would not -be recognised in the other party to the contract." - -The principle is pushed still further when an employer is made liable for -an accident happening to one of his employees at the hands of another -employee. - -A gives a sack of wheat to B and D each if they will dig a well for him. -All three parties are cognisant of the risks and accept them in the -contract. B, holding the rope on which D is lowered, lets it slip. If they -were all three men of exactly equal status, obviously D's action would be -against B. But they are not of equal status in England to-day. B and D are -_employees_, and are therefore in a special and inferior position before -the law compared with their employer A. D's action is, by this novel -principle, no longer against B, who accidentally injured him by a personal -act, however involuntary, for which a free man would be responsible, but -against A, who was innocent of the whole business. - -Now in all this it is quite clear that A has peculiar duties not because he -is a citizen, but because he is something more: an employer; and B and D -have special claims on A, not because they are citizens, but because they -are something less: _viz. employees_. They can _claim protection_ from A, -as inferiors of a superior in a State admitting such distinctions and -patronage. - -It will occur at once to the reader that in our existing social state the -employee will be very grateful for such legislation. One workman cannot -recover from another simply because the other will have no goods out of -which to pay damages. Let the burden, therefore, fall upon the rich man! - -Excellent. But that is not the point. To argue thus is to say that Servile -legislation is necessary if we are to solve the problems raised by -Capitalism. It remains servile legislation none the less. It is legislation -that would not exist in a society where property was well divided and where -a citizen could normally pay damages for the harm he had himself -caused.[10] - -This first trickle of the stream, however, though it is of considerable -historical interest as a point of departure, is not of very definite moment -to our subject compared with the great bulk of later proposals, some of -which are already law, others upon the point of becoming law, and which -definitely recognise the Servile State, the re-establishment of status in -the place of contract, and the universal division of citizens into two -categories of employers and employed. - -* * * * * - -These last merit a very different consideration, for they will represent to -history the conscious and designed entry of Servile Institutions into the -old Christian State. They are not "origins," small indications of coming -change which the historian will painfully discover as a curiosity. They are -the admitted foundations of a new order, deliberately planned by a few, -confusedly accepted by the many, as the basis upon which a novel and stable -society shall arise to replace the unstable and passing phase of -Capitalism. - -They fall roughly into three categories:-- - -(1) Measures by which the insecurity of the proletariat shall be relieved -through the action of the employing class, or of the proletariat itself -acting under compulsion. - -(2) Measures by which the employer shall be compelled to give not less than -a certain minimum for any labour he may purchase, and - -(3) Measures which compel a man lacking the means of production to labour, -though he may have made no contract to that effect. - -The last two, as will be seen in a moment, are complementary one of -another. - -As to the first: Measures to palliate the insecurity of the proletariat. - -We have of this an example in actual law at this moment. And that law the -Insurance Act (whose political source and motive I am not here discussing) -follows in every particular the lines of a Servile State. - -(a) Its fundamental criterion is employment. In other words, I am compelled -to enter a scheme providing me against the mischances of illness and -unemployment not because I am a citizen, but only if I am: - -(1) Exchanging services for goods; and either - -(2) Obtaining less than a certain amount of goods for those services, or - -(3) A vulgar fellow working with his hands. The law carefully excludes from -its provisions those forms of labour to which the educated and therefore -powerful classes are subject, and further excludes from compulsion the mass -of those who are for the moment earning enough to make them a class to be -reckoned with as economically free. I may be a writer of books who, should -he fall ill, will leave in the greatest distress the family which he -supports. If the legislator were concerned for the morals of citizens, I -should most undoubtedly come under this law, under the form of a compulsory -insurance added to my income tax. But the legislator is not concerned with -people of my sort. He is concerned with a new status which he recognises in -the State, to wit, the proletariat. He envisages the proletariat not quite -accurately as men either poor, or, if they are not poor, at any rate vulgar -people working with their hands, and he legislates accordingly. - -(b) Still more striking, as an example of status taking the place of -contract, is the fact that this law puts the duty of controlling the -proletariat and of seeing that the law is obeyed _not_ upon the proletariat -itself, but upon the _Capitalist class._ - -Now this point is of an importance that cannot be exaggerated. - -The future historian, whatever his interest in the first indications of -that profound revolution through which we are so rapidly passing, will most -certainly fix upon that one point as the cardinal landmark of our times. -The legislator surveying the Capitalist State proposes as a remedy for -certain of its evils the establishment of two categories in the State, -compels the lower man to registration, to a tax, and the rest of it, and -further compels the upper man to be the instrument in enforcing that -registration and in collecting that tax. No one acquainted with the way in -which any one of the great changes of the past has taken place, the -substitution of tenure for the Roman proprietary right in land, or the -substitution of the mediaeval peasant for the serf of the Dark Ages, can -possibly misunderstand the significance of such a turning point in our -history. - -Whether it will be completed or whether a reaction will destroy it is -another matter. Its mere proposal is of the greatest possible moment in the -inquiry we are here pursuing. - -Of the next two groups, the fixing of a Minimum Wage and the Compulsion to -Labour (which, as I have said, and will shortly show, are complementary one -to the other), neither has yet appeared in actual legislation, but both are -planned, both thought out, both possessed of powerful advocates, and both -upon the threshold of positive law. - -* * * * * - -The fixing of a Minimum Wage, with a definite sum fixed by statute, has not -yet entered our laws, but the first step towards such a consummation has -been taken in the shape of giving legal sanction to some hypothetical -Minimum Wage which shall be arrived at after discussion within a particular -trade. That trade is, of course, the mining industry. The law does not say: -"No Capitalist shall pay a miner less than so many shillings for so many -hours' work." But it does say: "Figures having been arrived at by local -boards, any miner working within the area of each board can claim by force -of law the minimum sum established by such boards." It is evident that from -this step to the next, which shall define some sliding scale of -remuneration for labour according to prices and the profits of capital, is -an easy and natural transition. It would give both parties what each -immediately requires: to capital a guarantee against disturbance; to labour -sufficiency and security. The whole thing is an excellent object lesson in -little of that general movement from free contract to status, and from the -Capitalist to the Servile State, which is the tide of our time. - -The neglect of older principles as abstract and doctrinaire; the immediate -need of both parties immediately satisfied; the unforeseen but necessary -consequence of satisfying such needs in such a fashion--all these, which -are apparent in the settlement the mining industry has begun, are the -typical forces producing the Servile State. - -Consider in its largest aspect the nature of such a settlement. - -The Proletarian accepts a position in which he produces for the Capitalist -a certain total of economic values, and retains out of that total a portion -only, leaving to the Capitalist all surplus value. The Capitalist, on his -side, is guaranteed in the secure and permanent expectation of that surplus -value through all the perils of social envy; the Proletarian is guaranteed -in a sufficiency and a security for that sufficiency; but by the very -action of such a guarantee there is withdrawn from him the power to refuse -his labour and thus to aim at putting himself in possession of the means of -production. - -Such schemes definitely divide citizens into two classes, the Capitalist -and the Proletarian. They make it impossible for the second to combat the -privileged position of the first. They introduce into the positive laws of -the community a recognition of social facts which already divide Englishmen -into two groups of economically more free and economically less free, and -they stamp with the authority of the State a new constitution of society. -Society is recognised as no longer consisting of free men bargaining freely -for their labour or any other commodity in their possession, but of two -contrasting status, owners and non-owners. The first must not be allowed to -leave the second without subsistence; the second must not be allowed to -obtain that grip upon the means of production which is the privilege of the -first. It is true that this first experiment is small in degree and -tentative in quality; but to judge the movement as a general whole we must -not only consider the expression it has actually received so far in -positive law, but the mood of our time. - -When this first experiment in a minimum wage was being debated in -Parliament, what was the great issue of debate? Upon what did those who -were the most ardent reformers particularly insist? _Not_ that the miners -should have an avenue open to them for obtaining possession of the mines; -not even that the State should have an avenue open to it for obtaining such -possession; _but that the minimum wage should be fixed at a certain -satisfactory level_! That, as our recent experience testifies for all of -us, was the crux of the quarrel. And that such a point should be the crux, -not the socialisation of the mines, nor the admission of the proletariat to -the means of production, but only a sufficiency and a security of wage, is -amply significant of the perhaps irresistible forces which are making in -the direction for which I argue in this book. - -There was here no attempt of the Capitalist to impose Servile conditions -nor of the Proletarian to resist them. Both parties were agreed upon that -fundamental change. The discussion turned upon the minimum limit of -subsistence to be securely provided, a point which left aside, because it -took for granted, the establishment of _some_ minimum in any case. - -Next, let it be noted (for it is of moment to a later part of my argument) -that experiments of this sort promise to extend piecemeal. There is no -likelihood, judging by men's actions and speech, of some grand general -scheme for the establishment of a minimum wage throughout the community. -Such a scheme would, of course, be as truly an establishment of the Servile -State as piecemeal schemes. But, as we shall see in a moment, the extension -of the principle piecemeal has a considerable effect upon the forms which -compulsion may take. - -The miners' refusal to work, with the exaggerated panic it caused, bred -this first tentative appearance of the minimum wage in our laws. Normally, -capital prefers free labour with its margin of destitution; for such an -anarchy, ephemeral though it is of its nature, while it lasts provides -cheap labour; from the narrowest point of view it provides in the still -competitive areas of Capitalism a better chance for profits. - -But as one group of workmen after another, concerned with trades -immediately necessary to the life of the nation, and therefore tolerating -but little interruption, learn the power which combination gives them, it -is inevitable that the legislator (concentrated as he is upon momentary -remedies for difficulties as they arise) should propose for one such trade -after another the remedy of a minimum wage. - -There can be little doubt that, trade by trade, the principle will extend. -For instance, the two and a half millions now guaranteed against -unemployment are guaranteed against it for a certain weekly sum. That -weekly sum must bear some relation to their estimated earnings when they -are in employment. - -It is a short step from the calculation of unemployment benefit (its being -fixed by statute at a certain level, and that level determined by something -which is regarded as the just remuneration of labour in that trade); it is -a short step, I say, from that to a statutory fixing of the sums paid -during employment. - -The State says to the Serf: "I saw to it that you should have so much when -you were unemployed. I find that in some rare cases my arrangement leads to -your getting more when you are unemployed than when you are employed. I -further find that in many cases, though you get more when you are employed, -yet the difference is not sufficient to tempt a lazy man to work, or to -make him take any particular trouble to get work. I must see to this." - -The provision of a fixed schedule during unemployment thus inevitably leads -to the examination, the defining, and at last the imposition of a minimum -wage during employment; and every compulsory provision for unemployed -benefits is the seed of a minimum wage. - -Of still greater effect is the mere presence of State regulation in such a -matter. The fact that the State has begun to gather statistics of wages -over these large areas of industry, and to do so not for a mere statistical -object, but a practical one, and the fact that the State has begun to immix -the action of positive law and constraint with the older system of free -bargaining, mean that the whole weight of its influence is now in favour of -regulation. It is no rash prophecy to assert that in the near future our -industrial society will see a gradually extending area of industry in which -from two sides the fixing of wages by statute shall appear. From the one -side it will come in the form of the State examining the conditions of -labour in connection with its own schemes for establishing sufficiency and -security by insurance. From the other side it will come through the -reasonable proposals to make contracts between groups of labour and groups -of capital enforceable in the Courts. - -* * * * * - -So much, then, for the Principle of a Minimum Wage. It has already appeared -in our laws. It is certain to spread. But how does the presence of this -introduction of a Minimum form part of the advance towards the Servile -State? - -I have said that the principle of a minimum wage involves as its converse -the principle of compulsory labour. Indeed, most of the importance which -the principle of a minimum wage has for this inquiry lies in that converse -necessity of compulsory labour which it involves. - -But as the connection between the two may not be clear at first sight, we -must do more than take it for granted. We must establish it by process of -reason. - -There are two distinct forms in which the whole policy of enforcing -security and sufficiency by law for the proletariat produce a corresponding -policy of compulsory labour. - -The first of these forms is the compulsion which the Courts will exercise -upon either of the parties concerned in the giving and in the receiving of -the minimum wage. The second form is the necessity under which society will -find itself, when once the principle of the minimum wage is conceded, -coupled with the principle of sufficiency and security, to maintain those -whom the minimum wage excludes from the area of normal employment. - -As to the first form:-- - -A Proletarian group has struck a bargain with a group of Capitalists to the -effect that it will produce for that capital ten measures of value in a -year, will be content to receive six measures of value for itself, and will -leave four measures as surplus value for the Capitalists. The bargain is -ratified; the Courts have the power to enforce it. If the Capitalists by -some trick of fines or by bluntly breaking their word pay out in wages less -than the six measures, the Courts must have some power of constraining -them. In other words, there must be some sanction to the action of the law. -There must be some power of punishment, and, through punishment, of -compulsion. Conversely, if the men, having struck this bargain, go back -upon their word; if individuals among them or sections among them cease -work with a new demand for seven measures instead of six, the Courts must -have the power of constraining and of punishing _them_. Where the bargain -is ephemeral or at any rate extended over only reasonable limits of time, -it would be straining language perhaps to say that each individual case of -constraint exercised against the workmen would be a case of compulsory -labour. But extend the system over a long period of years, make it normal -to industry and accepted as a habit in men's daily conception of the way in -which their lives should be conducted, and the method is necessarily -transformed into a system of compulsory labour. In trades where wages -fluctuate little this will obviously be the case. "You, the agricultural -labourers of this district, have taken fifteen shillings a week for a very -long time. It has worked perfectly well. There seems no reason why you -should have more. Nay, you put your hands to it through your officials in -the year so and so that you regarded that sum as sufficient. Such and such -of your members are now refusing to perform what this Court regards as a -contract. They must return within the limits of that contract or suffer the -consequences." - -Remember what power analogy exercises over men's minds, and how, when -systems of the sort are common to many trades, they will tend to create a -general point of view for all trades. Remember also how comparatively -slight a threat is already sufficient to control men in our industrial -society, the proletarian mass of which is accustomed to live from week to -week under peril of discharge, and has grown readily amenable to the threat -of any reduction in those wages upon which it can but just subsist. - -Nor are the Courts enforcing such contracts or quasi-contracts (as they -will come to be regarded) the only inducement. - -A man has been compelled by law to put aside sums from his wages as -insurance against unemployment. But he is no longer the judge of how such -sums shall be used. They are not in his possession; they are not even in -the hands of some society which he can really control. They are in the -hands of a Government official. "Here is work offered you at twenty-five -shillings a week. If you do not take it you certainly shall not have a -right to the money you have been compelled to put aside. If you will take -it the sum shall still stand to your credit, and when next in my judgment -your unemployment is not due to your recalcitrance and refusal to labour, I -will permit you to have some of your money: not otherwise." Dovetailing in -with this machinery of compulsion is all that mass of registration and -docketing which is accumulating through the use of Labour Exchanges. Not -only will the Official have the power to enforce special contracts, or the -power to coerce individual men to labour under the threat of a fine, but he -will also have a series of _dossiers_ by which the record of each workman -can be established. No man, once so registered and known, can escape; and, -of the nature of the system, the numbers caught in the net must steadily -increase until the whole mass of labour is mapped out and controlled. - -These are very powerful instruments of compulsion indeed. They already -exist. They are already a part of our laws. - -Lastly, there is the obvious bludgeon of "compulsory arbitration": a -bludgeon so obvious that it is revolting even to our proletariat. Indeed, I -know of no civilised European state which has succumbed to so gross a -suggestion. For it is a frank admission of servitude at one step, and for -good and all, such as men of our culture are not yet prepared to -swallow.[11] - -So much, then, for the first argument and the first form in which -compulsory labour is seen to be a direct and necessary consequence of -establishing a minimum wage and of scheduling employment to a scale. - -* * * * * - -The second is equally clear. In the production of wheat the healthy and -skilled man who can produce ten measures of wheat is compelled to work for -six measures, and the Capitalist is compelled to remain content with four -measures for his share. The law will punish him if he tries to get out of -his legal obligation and to pay his workmen less than six measures of wheat -during the year. What of the man who is not sufficiently strong or skilled -to produce even six measures? Will the Capitalist be constrained to pay him -more than the values he can produce? Most certainly not. The whole -structure of production as it was erected during the Capitalist phase of -our industry has been left intact by the new laws and customs. Profit is -still left a necessity. If it were destroyed, still more if a loss were -imposed by law, that would be a contradiction of the whole spirit in which -all these reforms are being undertaken. They are being undertaken with the -object of establishing stability where there is now instability, and of -"reconciling," as the ironic phrase goes, "the interests of capital and -labour." It would be impossible, without a general ruin, to compel capital -to lose upon the man who is not worth even the minimum wage. How shall that -element of insecurity and instability be eliminated? To support the man -gratuitously because he cannot earn a minimum wage, when all the rest of -the commonwealth is working for its guaranteed wages, is to put a premium -upon incapacity and sloth. The man must be made to work. He must be taught, -if possible, to produce those economic values, which are regarded as the -minimum of sufficiency. He must be kept at that work even if he cannot -produce the minimum, lest his presence as a free labourer should imperil -the whole scheme of the minimum wage, and introduce at the same time a -continuous element of instability. Hence he is necessarily a subject for -forced labour. We have not yet in this country, established by force of -law, the right to this form of compulsion, but it is an inevitable -consequence of those other reforms which have just been reviewed. The -"Labour Colony" (a prison so called because euphemism is necessary to every -transition) will be erected to absorb this surplus, and that last form of -compulsion will crown the edifice of these reforms. They will then be -complete so far as the subject classes are concerned, and even though this -particular institution of the "Labour Colony" (logically the last of all) -precede in time other forms of compulsion, it will make the advent of those -other forms of compulsion more certain, facile, and rapid. - -* * * * * - -There remains one last remark to be made upon the concrete side of my -subject. I have in this last section illustrated the tendency towards the -Servile State from actual laws and actual projects with which all are -to-day familiar in English industrial society, and I have shown how these -are certainly establishing the proletariat in a novel, but to them -satisfactory, Servile Status. - -It remains to point out in a very few lines the complementary truth that -what should be the very essence of Collectivist Reform, to wit, the -translation of the means of production from the hands of private owners to -the hands of public officials, is nowhere being attempted. So far from its -being attempted, all so-called "Socialistic" experiments in -municipalisation and nationalisation are merely increasing the dependence -of the community upon the Capitalist class. To prove this, we need only -observe that every single one of these experiments is effected by a loan. - -Now what is meant in economic reality by these municipal loans and national -loans raised for the purpose of purchasing certain small sections of the -means of production? - -Certain Capitalists own a number of rails, cars, etc. They put to work upon -these certain Proletarians, and the result is a certain total of economic -values. Let the surplus values obtainable by the Capitalists after the -subsistence of the proletarians is provided for amount to £10,000 a year. -We all know how a system of this sort is "Municipalised." A "loan" is -raised. It bears "interest." It is saddled with a "sinking fund." - -Now this loan is not really made in money, though the terms of it are in -money. It is, at the end of a long string of exchanges, nothing more nor -less than the loan of the cars, the rails, etc., by the Capitalists to the -Municipality. And the Capitalists require, before they will strike the -bargain, a guarantee that the whole of their old profit shall be paid to -them, together with a further yearly sum, which after a certain number of -years shall represent the original value of the concern when they handed it -over. These last additional sums are called the "sinking fund"; the -continued payment of the old surplus values is called the "interest." - -In theory certain small sections of the means of production might be -acquired in this way. That particular section would have been "socialised." -The "Sinking Fund" (that is, the paying of the Capitalists for their plant -by instalments) might be met out of the general taxation imposed on the -community, considering how large that is compared with any one experiment -of the kind. The "interest" may by good management be met out of the true -profits of the tramways. At the end of a certain number of years the -community will be in possession of the tramways, will no longer be -exploited in this particular by Capitalism, will have bought out Capitalism -from the general taxes, and, in so far as the purchase money paid has been -consumed and not saved or invested by the Capitalists, a small measure of -"socialisation" will have been achieved. - -As a fact things are never so favourable. - -In practice three conditions militate against even these tiny experiments -in expropriation: the fact that the implements are always sold at much more -than their true value; the fact that the purchase includes non-productive -things; and the fact that the rate of borrowing is much faster than the -rate of repayment. These three adverse conditions lead in practice to -nothing but the riveting of Capitalism more securely round the body of the -State. - -For what is it that is paid for when a tramway, for instance, is taken -over? Is it the true capital alone, the actual plant, which is paid for, -even at an exaggerated price? Far from it! Over and above the rails and the -cars, there are all the commissions that have been made, all the champagne -luncheons, all the lawyers' fees, all the compensations to this man and to -that man, all the bribes. Nor does this exhaust the argument. Tramways -represent a productive investment. What about pleasure gardens, -wash-houses, baths, libraries, monuments, and the rest? The greater part of -these things are the product of "loans." When you put up a public -institution you borrow the bricks and the mortar and the iron and the wood -and the tiles from Capitalists, _and you pledge yourself to pay interest, -and to produce a sinking fund precisely as though a town hall or a bath -were a piece of reproductive machinery_. - -To this must be added the fact that a considerable proportion of the -purchases are failures: purchases of things just before they are driven out -by some new invention; while on the top of the whole business you have the -fact that the borrowing goes on at a far greater rate than the repayment. - -In a word, all these experiments up and down Europe during our generation, -municipal and national, have resulted in an indebtedness to capital -increasing rather more than twice, but not three times, as fast as the rate -of repayment. The interest which capital demands with a complete -indifference as to whether the loan is productive or non-productive amounts -to rather more than 1 1/2 per cent. _excess_ over the produce of the -various experiments, even though we count in the most lucrative and -successful of these, such as the state railways of many countries, and the -thoroughly successful municipal enterprises of many modern towns. - -Capitalism has seen to it that it shall be a winner and not a loser by this -form of sham Socialism, as by every other. And the same forces which in -practice forbid confiscation see to it that the attempt to mask -confiscation by purchase shall not only fail, but shall turn against those -who have not had the courage to make a frontal attack upon privilege. - -* * * * * - -With these concrete examples showing how Collectivism, in attempting its -practice, does but confirm the Capitalist position, and showing how our -laws have already begun to impose a Servile Status upon the Proletariat, I -end the argumentative thesis of this book. - -I believe I have proved my case. - -The future of industrial society, and in particular of English society, -left to its own direction, is a future in which subsistence and security -shall be guaranteed for the Proletariat, but shall be guaranteed at the -expense of the old political freedom and by the establishment of that -Proletariat in a status really, though not nominally, servile. At the same -time, the Owners will be guaranteed in their profits, the whole machinery -of production in the smoothness of its working, and that stability which -has been lost under the Capitalist phase of society will be found once -more. - -The internal strains which have threatened society during its Capitalist -phase will be relaxed and eliminated, and the community will settle down -upon that Servile basis which was its foundation before the advent of the -Christian faith, from which that faith slowly weaned it, and to which in -the decay of that faith it naturally returns. - - - - -Conclusion It is possible to portray a great social movement of the past -with accuracy and in detail if one can spare to the task the time necessary -for research and further bring to it a certain power of co-ordination by -which a great mass of detail can be integrated and made one whole. - -Such a task is rarely accomplished, but it does not exceed the powers of -history. - -With regard to the future it is otherwise. No one can say even in its -largest aspect or upon its chief structural line what that future will be. -He can only present the main tendencies of his time: he can only determine -the equation of the curve and presume that that equation will apply more or -less to its next developments. - -So far as I can judge, those societies which broke with the continuity of -Christian civilisation in the sixteenth century--which means, roughly, -North Germany and Great Britain--tend at present to the re-establishment of -a Servile Status. It will be diversified by local accident, modified by -local character, hidden under many forms. But it will come. - -That the mere Capitalist anarchy cannot endure is patent to all men. That -only a very few possible solutions to it exist should be equally patent to -all. For my part, as I have said in these pages, I do not believe there are -more than two: a reaction towards well-divided property, or the -re-establishment of servitude. I cannot believe that theoretical -Collectivism, now so plainly failing, will ever inform a real and living -society. - -But my conviction that the re-establishment of the Servile Status in -industrial society is actually upon us does not lead me to any meagre and -mechanical prophecy of what the future of Europe shall be. The force of -which I have been speaking is not the only force in the field. There is a -complex knot of forces underlying any nation once Christian; a smouldering -of the old fires. - -Moreover, one can point to European societies which will most certainly -reject any such solution of our Capitalist problem, just as the same -societies have either rejected, or lived suspicious of, Capitalism itself, -and have rejected or lived suspicious of that industrial organisation which -till lately identified itself with "progress" and national well-being. - -These societies are in the main the same as those which, in that great -storm of the sixteenth century,--the capital episode in the story of -Christendom--held fast to tradition and saved the continuity of morals. -Chief among them should be noted to-day the French and the Irish. - -I would record it as an impression and no more that the Servile State, -strong as the tide is making for it in Prussia and in England to-day, will -be modified, checked, perhaps defeated in war, certainly halted in its -attempt to establish itself completely, by the strong reaction which these -freer societies upon its flank will perpetually exercise. - -Ireland has decided for a free peasantry, and our generation has seen the -solid foundation of that institution laid. In France the many experiments -which elsewhere have successfully introduced the Servile State have been -contemptuously rejected by the populace, and (most significant!) a recent -attempt to register and to "insure" the artisans as a separate category of -citizens has broken down in the face of an universal and a virile contempt. - -That this second factor in the development of the future, the presence of -free societies, will destroy the tendency to the Servile State elsewhere I -do not affirm, but I believe that it will modify that tendency, certainly -by example and perhaps by direct attack. And as I am upon the whole hopeful -that the Faith will recover its intimate and guiding place in the heart of -Europe, so I believe that this sinking back into our original Paganism (for -the tendency to the Servile State is nothing less) will in due time be -halted and reversed. - -_Videat Deus_. - - - - -Endnotes - -[1] Save in this special sense of "Collectivist," the word "Socialist" has -either no clear meaning, or is used synonymously with other older and -better-known words. - -[2] The purchasing power of money fell during this century to about a third -of its original standard. £3 (say) would purchase under Charles I the -necessities which £1 would have purchased under Henry VIII. Nearly all the -_receipts_ of the Crown were customary. Most of its _expenses_ were -competitive. It continued to get but £1 where it was gradually compelled to -pay out £3. - -[3] Before any trust is established in this country, the first step is to -"interest" one of our politicians. The Telephones, the South Wales Coal -Trust, the happily defeated Soap Trust, the Soda, Fish, and Fruit Trusts, -are examples in point. - -[4] By which word "_property_" is meant, of course, property in the means -of Production. - -[5] That this is an illusion I shall attempt to show on a later page. - -[6] By an illusion which clever statesmanship could use to the advantage of -the community, he even estimates the natural forces he controls (which need -no accumulation, but are always present) on the analogy of his capital, and -will part with them at "so many years' purchase." It is by taking advantage -of this illusion that land purchase schemes (as in Ireland) happily work to -the advantage of the dispossessed. - -[7] Thus you can raid the brewers in a society half-Puritan where brewing -is thought immoral by many, but proceed to railway stock and it will be a -very different matter. - -[8] In using this metaphor I at once record my apologies to those who -believe in elliptical and hyperbolic universes, and confess myself an -old-fashioned parabolist. Further, I admit that the triangles in question -are spherical. - -[9] Thus the money levied upon the death of some not very wealthy squire -and represented by, say, locomotives in the Argentine, turns into two miles -of palings for the pleasant back gardens of a thousand new officials under -the Inebriates Bill, or is simply handed over to the shareholders of the -Prudential under the Insurance Act. In the first case the locomotives have -been given back to the Argentine, and after a long series of exchanges have -been bartered against a great number of wood-palings from the Baltic not -exactly reproductive wealth. In the second case the locomotives which used -to be the squire's hands become, or their equivalent becomes, means of -production in the hands of the Sassoons. - -[10] How true it is that the idea of status underlies this legislation can -easily be tested by taking parallel cases, in one of which working men are -concerned, in the other the professional class. If I contract to write for -a publisher a complete History of the County of Rutland, and in the pursuit -of that task, while examining some object of historical interest, fall down -a pit, I should not be able to recover against the publisher. But if I -dress in mean clothes, and the same publisher, deceived, gives me a month's -work at cleaning out his ornamental water and I am wounded in that -occupation by a fierce fish, he will be mulcted to my advantage, and that -roundly. - -[11] But it has twice been brought forward in due process as a Bill in -Parliament! - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SERVILE STATE *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |