SOCIALISM AND THE POLITICAL PARTIES. T HE Master of Elibank has
been called indiscreet for his speech in regard to the relations between Socialism and Liberalism. We do not, however, think that he deserves this description, even from the party point of view. It is best for parties, as well as for individuals, to face facts, and no one can deny that what the Master of Elibank- stated were facts. In any case, from the wider point of view of public interest, he did good service in drawing attention to the real aims and objects of the Socialists. Though we are opposed as strongly as possible to these aims and objects, and believe that if the Socialist theories were carried into practice they would ruin the nation, we must not be held to condemn the Labour Members as a whole. We believe them, though politically mistaken, to be for the most part men of quite as high character as their fellow-politicians. They are sincere and honourable men, and truly anxious, according to their lights, to do their best for the country. We may say of them, indeed, as we should say of the aristocratic class politicians of the beginning and middle of the last century, that though they aim at class legislation, and at the bestowal of special privileges on a particular portion of the community, they do so unconsciously rather than con- sciously. Just as the squires in the " twenties " and " thirties " honestly believed that if the rural aristocracy flourished the nation as a whole must flourish, so Labour Members think that if the working man, or rather the Trade-Union working man, controls our politics all must be well.
For the moment what we desire to consider is the position of the Socialists and independent Labour Members in our political system. Though to a large extent they owe their existence to Liberal votes and the support of the Liberal Party, their alliance with that party is at present by no means a firm one. In effect they stand between the two parties, and may be said to be putting themselves up to auction. They will ultimately give their support, both in the House and the country, to the party which promises them most. At the moment, they tell us openly that if the Liberals will not do their bidding they will destroy the Liberal Party, and make terms with the other side. The question, then, is,—Which of the two great parties in the State will buy the Socialist vote ? As Unionists, we trust most sincerely that it may not be the Unionist Party, for such a purchwe would com- plete the ruin begun by Mr. Chamberlain a id the Tariff Reformers. Whichever party allies itself with the Socialists will be ruined thereby, for we are convinced that though the Socialists may be a strong minority, they are a minority, and that the British people as a whole are not, and never will be, Socialists, and, moreover, will refuse their con- fidence to any party that adopts a definitely Socialistic programme. Englishmen and Scotsmen may be willing to call themselves Socialists, or to adopt on the platform or in the Press a certain number of the Socialist shibbo- leths, for our countrymen are exceedingly bad at political analysis and political logic. AS soon, however, as they are face to face with any real attempt to nationalise the sources of wealth, and thus to abandon the individualistic basis of society, they invariably shrink back from the abyss. There is nothing commoner even now than to hear a man talk strong Socialism in the abstract, but whenever a concrete Socialist proposal is put forward to see him finding good practical reasons for condemning it.
No doubt the temptation to a broken party like the Unionists to lean upon Socialist help will be very great. In all probability the course of events will be something of this kind. The Liberals will coquet with the Socialists, and will in appearance go some way towards meeting their demands. Sooner or later, however, the Socialists will demand something which the Liberals will not be willing to give, a split will then take place, and the Socialists will offer their aid to the Unionists to turn out the Liberals. If the Unionists are wise, they will absolutely refuse to take advantage of such a situation, and will decline to " dish " the Liberals when they are acting on sound principles and making a stand against Collectivism. We fear, however, that Mr. Chamberlain and his followers will not be inclined to take this line, but will tell the Socialists, as, indeed, they have already told them, that Socialism can to a great extent be attained through Tariff Reform. As Mr. Chamberlain very truly pointed out at the beginning of the Session, Protection in effect does what the Trade-Union Socialists desire,—it prevents competition. Free imports can easily be represented as a kind of inanimate blacklegs who illegitimately enter the home market. Again, in a general tariff, as Mr. Balfour, following Mr. Chamberlain, hinted, we have a means of supplying the immense funds which will be required for such Socialistic legislation as old-age pensions, State housing, &c. There is, indeed, a natural affinity betwo.en Protection and Socialism, and therefore, as long as the Protectionists control the Unionist Party, we may expect to see overtures for co-operation between the Socialists and the Tariff Reformers. In reality, however, nothing could be more damaging to the Unionist Party than anything approaching such co-operation. The suspicion of an alliance with the Socialists and Labour Members would, we are convinced, drive from the party thousands of men who, though they may be somewhat confused as to the exact effect of Tariff Reform, are clearly determined to have nothing to do with such schemes as old-age pensions and the scattering of millions of public money upon the State-aided pauperisation of the people.
If the Unionists desire to retain, or rather to regain, their hold upon the conservative and moderate section of the community, and to be what they ought to be, a Left- Centre party, they must reject all thought of using the Socialist vote to upset the Liberals, and must make their appeal direct to the moderate and individualist instincts of the nation. These instincts are, we believe, as strong as ever, and are bound sooner or later to find representation in our party system. If the Liberals quarrel with the Socialists, and the Unionists at the same time flatter and encourage the Labour Party, the Left-Centre men in the country will, since nothing better is open to them, throw themselves on to the Liberal side. If, on the other hand, the Unionists stand firm, there will be a great reaction in their favour, in spite of the efact that the Liberals ultimately refuse to tread the path of Socialism. The fact that they have gone some way down the road will be taken, and rightly taken, by the country as a proof that they are not quite to be trusted in this matter. But if the Unionists are to become once again the anti-Socialist and moderate party, it is essential that they shall drop Protection under any of its aliases, and shall reunite on a Free-trade basis. it will not be enough to abandon one side of Socialism ; it must be abandoned as a whole, and with it Tariff Reform and all Mr. Chamberlain's amazing schemes for emptying the Treasury by Socialistic legisla- tion in order to get an excuse for a general tariff. If we may adopt a metaphor which endows an inanimate object with volition, we should say that the pendulum is longing to swing in the Unionist direction, but that it dare not do so until it is quite clear that the Unionists have abandoned' the policy of Protection, Preference, and Tariff Reform, and will have nothing to do with Socialism, whatever the party and Parliamentary temptations to coquet with it, and so " dish " the Liberals.
Previous page
