SOCIALISM AND IDLENESS.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Mr. Chamberlain's Circular to the Boards of Guardians meets your approval because, amongst other reasons, " it main- tains the great idea that the man who can support himself is bound to do so, and not to seek to live at the expense of his toiling brethren ;" and you affirm that although this is an argument " which should press with special weight upon the minds of Socialists," yet it is "the one to which they pay the least attention." You farther imply that the " ancient law," "He that will not work, neither shall he eat," which appears to you to be " too stern for modern thought," is antagonistic to Socialism.
Surely, Sir, this is rather hard on the Socialists. I know something of their doctrines, although I do not accept them, and I have always understood that their agitation is based on the very fact that there is amongst us a large class of persons whose members do not support themselves, although perfectly capable of doing so ; but, on the contrary, live, and live well— often in comfort, sometimes in luxury—at the expense of their
toiling brethren. It is precisely because the ancient law is set at defiance by the "idle rich " that Socialists threaten us with revolution. If every one worked for his living, their movement would have no raison, d'etre. The ideal may not be a practicable• one, so far, that is, as it points to productive labour alone as having any social value ; but let us at least be just. Contempt for idleness is an essentially Socialist principle.—I am, Sir, &c.,. HENRY ELLIS. 25 Brunswick Square, Camberwell, March 20th.
[Socialism, as we understand it, would compel every one to work, but pay all according to need. The result would be that all who could not work would be maintained by the community, instead of by the individuals responsible for them.--En. Spectator.]
Previous page
