WHAT IS COMMUNISM?
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOEL.
Camberwell, Slat July 1849. Sut—I think it may with truth be asserted, that most of the readers of the Spectator, who are so from preference are believers in the doctrines of political economy. Its tenets have generally been defended by no one more stoutly or ably than by yourself; and I doubt not you are now, as you have been heretofore, pre- pared to maintain their integrity against all opposers, indifferent to whether they be disciples of Louis Blanc or the followers of Lord Ashley. Whilst holding this opinion, however, I may be excused for saying that your recent writing on the subject has somewhat astounded me, and doubtless others of your readers. I al- - lade more particularly to the article in your last week's number entitled " The Political Heresy," and also to one in the previous week's paper on the subject of the bakers' claims to legislative consideration. Now, putting together your re- cognition of those claims with the interpretation you have given in your last week's paper to Communism, with also the intimation of how little prepared the Econo- mists are by well-digested and definite ideas on the science of political economy to enter the lists of controversy with the Communists, it would appear as if a new light had broken upon you in regard to those two subjects—that Communism is not so destructive nor Political Economy so constructive as people generally have imagined. If, Sir, I have read you aright, I extremely regret that from so infia- ential a source as the Spectator may be deemed, such a statement should have proceeded. I verily believe that Communism, in whatever form it exists, whether as developed in the Ten-Hours Factory Bill, in the bill for the Protection of Women, in the OLD Poor-law, in bills for the special care of journeymen bakers, or in the more elaborate schemes of Louis Blanc, is the hurtful thing to society the term "Communism" has been generally understood to imply. It in effect repudiates the penalty that has fallen on all men alike—that "man shall live by the sweat of his brow.' It in effect destroys man's independence by making him dependent; as was exhibited in the working of the old Poor-law • as has been seen in Ireland's mendicancy; and as is painfully at times witnessed in the indis- criminative aid bestowed by many of our charitable institutions. You say it may be (the Communist plan) called practical Christianity—serving your neighbour as yourself." With equal propriety, does it appear to me, might you characterize the Agapemone in similar terms.
"But Communism is a principle": is it not rather a phantasm, "It is the antagonism of Competition, and purports to rest upon the fact that if two men took counsel together in order to work for their mutual interest, they would in the ag- gregate obtain more than if they strove separately each to get all he could at the ex- pense of the other." "If the two men took counsel together," &c.: it would he a " fact " undoubtedly, but they do not; neither in their natural state will they, what- ever the system may be. Wherein, then, is the "antagonism of Competition?" Com- petition is a fact; and, productive as I allow it to be of much evil and.auffer- ing, is, nevertheless, the operation of a natural law—the striving of one man against his fellow man for his daily bread; for it is strife and contention in this world, and must be so until all men are Christians. And what if "competition" be an element in political economy ? if in the science, it must be recognized and received, as it in importance relatively bears to the other elements of the science. The atudent or philosopher may not reject this or that merely because his recog- nition of it may lead to injurious consequences; but even if he were, its operation would be the same, because the law or element in question would be one existing in nature independently of him or of his control. He must take the natural and moral world as he finds it. Adaptation and conformity are the most he is capa- ble of; and these the political economist and statesman effect in applying the laws of political economy to the government of mankind. Politico-economical science has not yet been fairly tested. Communism has existed in various forms, and it has failed—failed completely in producing either happiness or contentment. It would indeed appear, from your apparent doubts of the efficiency of political economy for good, implied by the terms of your reference to the inadequate defi- nition given or imperfect understanding by the economists of "capital or stock," and also of "competition," that therefore there must be something after all in Communism; and in order to prove to the world that Communism is a delusive,- misleading thing, you say the moral police who are to deal with the secret in- novators—the intellectual gendarmerie," (the Communists of course) should "overhaul their own weapons, furbish them up, and try them for use." Why, if it were demonstrated within the next twenty-four hence, that from Adam Smith to the present time, political economists have been no better than charlatans,— that political economy is a cheat,—I cannot discover in what respect the proof of that fact would show that Communism is other than it generally is believed to be. Communism never can be argued on common grounds with political economy. Each must be argued on its own grounds; and the propounder or advocate of either will commit a great mistake by "deigning to take the discussion on the antagonist's ground." Such a proceeding might exhibit great dialectical ability on either side—making fine-drawn distinctions and splitting of hairs; but sure am I, it would lead to mystification and compromise, alike injurious to the progress of truth and the wellbeing of the people. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, W. S. [Respect for an old and eeteemed correspondent has induced. us to stretch a point in publishing his letter; but to show him how little it is calculated to ad- vance his own view, we will point out some only of its ladies and misconceptions. We had said that persons of his school are too apt to discuss this subject withoue distinct ideas attached even to the name of Communism: in reply, he avows his belief that "Communism is the hurtful thing to society the term Communism has generally been understood to imply." W. S. has a right to his belief; but he does not state what is his notion of "the thing," nor his grounds of be- lief; so that he absolutely prevents any consideration of either. He asserts that. Communism repudiates the curse of labour • which is not true of any exposition that we have seen on that side: he afterwards confesses, by implication; that Communism is a particular distribution of labour. He complains that we define the principle professed by Communists to be practical Christianity; and lower down he asserts that competition must continue "until all men are Chris- tians,"—which is almost the same proposition in almost the same words. He asserts that men do not take counsel together: but they do, in many cases. He says they would not do so in "their natural state": what is "their nattuor state"? Competition, we are told, is an element in political economy, and we must not refuse to study it for fear of injurious consequences: Communists have an equal right to say that we must not be deterred from examining their doctrine by fear of injurious consequences; yet W. S. so strangely" warns us from that inquiry, under the threat of "mystification and compromise. In fact, he hints that the Spectator ought not to sanction the discussion of Communism, lest people should be converted to it! To our apprehension, this does not come within any description of argument. Throughout his letter W. S. implies that we have pronounced a judgment in favour of Communism: this is a serious misconception—we have expressed no opinion on the comparative soundness of antagonist doctrines; our object was of a different nature—to show how profitless and unwise was discussion continued without agreement. on terms. W. S. is cer- tainly not so well "up in this subject-as he usually is in what he handles.—Eo4
Previous page
