TO THE EDrrOR OF TILE SPECTATOR.
Camberwell, 4th September 1849.
Slit—I must confess my inability to discover, either in your remarks or in the letters of Mr. Jeffery and Mr. Cauvin, any reason that should alter or qualify my opinion as to the mode which should be adopted for the discussion of the rival systems of Political Economy and COEILEUDISIII. I have said, "Communism never can be argued on common grounds with political economy—each must be argued on its own grounds," and I say so still ; but in saying that, I wish it to bounder- stood I do not object to the discussion of Communism. Discuss Communism, if it so please you, by all means; only let it be called by its right name. Commu- nism and Political Economy are antagonistic to each other; both cannot be right: if Communism be the true system, Political Economy must be false. On which- ever side the truth lies, the discussion should be taken separately—each examined on its own ampulla. To attempt to dovetail ems with the other, when one of the two must be false, is seriously to injure and retard the accomplishment of the one which is true. Let me not be misunderstood. I am here assuming that the two systems are incompatible; and that such is your own view, I will quote your words. You say—" The Anti-Communists assert, that without indi- vidual property there will be no saving; without competition of trading bodies, no stimulus to increased production ; without individual competition, and the power of individual accumulation, no stimulus to industry. The Communists assert, that individual accumulation leads to wasteful because needless and fruitless saving; that the want of a common understanding leads to wasteful because need- less and returnless industry; and that the common welfare wiltaiibrd the same sort of stimulus to industry that family solicitude does at present, each fulfilling what is required of him according to his capacity." I. will accept your definition of the two systems, and beg to ask whether it be possible to conceive two things more diametrically opposed to each other than the two you have so well described? I submit, therefore, that a political economist, having faith in the science he pro- fesses, is not acting inconsistently or with bigotry in refusing to take the dis- cussion on. his "antagonises ground "; neither apes it follow that by his refusal he "shuts himself up within the exclusive.folds of his own doctrine," any more than by his refusal he assumes " the science to have reached its utmost limits." Far be it from me to contend that political economy is not "susceptible of further development "—not capable of " expansion "; but eertainly the "development " predicated by MCulloch (quoted by Mr. Cauvin) is not in the direction of Commun- ism, either as it is defined by you, or in " the extension through society of the associative idea involved in life-assurance, &c.," as stated by Mr. Jeffery. This gentleman evidently writes with a full belief in the doctrines of political economy generally, but as plainly is he in love with the specious humanities of the Communistic system, which some call "practical Christianity"; and he would have the two if possible. But I have yet to learn that the science of political economy is inimical to Christianity, practical or theoretical. I am, however, told by Mr. Cauvin, that I am "all at sea as to the relation which Communism bears to Christianity"; to convict me of which he instances "the writings of some of the early Fathers of the Church," which show that they "not only preached but practised Communism"; but he afterwards admits that my rejoining that the lathers "were very good Christians but very bad political economists would not settle the question' —of what worth then is the citation? Just nothing at all; and implies that Mr. Caitlin is at sea himself, where he thinks he sees me.. As- suming notwithstanding, for the sake merely of argument, that "the principle of Communism is practical Christianity," I contend it would be non-effective, be- cause it would be forced upon unregenerate men—a community not vitally changed by spiritual religion. Find a community of regenerate men, (" when all men shall beChristians,") and you will have the Millennium, and of course "prac- tical Christianity," but proceeding not from systems built up by the hands of man, ColnalaniaLia or otherwise—it will have proceeded from the spiritual change of man's nature. Is political economy inimical to this consummation ? Certainly not. Its laws may at times operate harshly and painfully in beating down Wages, in reducing profits; but this is the case only when supply exceeds demand: Their (the laws) natural operation then is- to lead, sometimes to force, to emigration and colonization, by which means civilization is diffused coincidently with Christian precept and practice. The community that per- verts the natural operation of these laws of political eeonony, brings on it- self retributive justice in the form of crime, poverty, and wont. Am I asked for an example? I point emphatically to Ireland. That country possesses a greater supply of labour than work by which to employ it. Shortly stated, the consequence is, that emigration is being forced on the Irishman as well as on the attention of his Government; but not before experiencing the retributive justice of which I have spoken. What would the Communist do in those aireumetauces? Would he not keep them at home, build workshops for them, and, tell them to go and work each according to his capacity and be happy? We are in this instance enabled to judge what the success of such a plan would be, by calling to remem- brance the working of the Government schemes applied to the alleviation of the sufferings of the people during the Irish famine: those schemes were essentially Communistic, and were borne with even by their concocters merely as temporary measures to meet a specific want—they were justifiable only on that ground. It was not, however, my purpose in this letter to discuss specifically either Po- 'Meal Economy or Communism. My desire was rather to set myself right in re- tea, few points, respecting which I appear to have been misunderstood.
Previous page
