THE SOCIAL PROSPECT IN FRANCE. T HOSE who study political letters
from France with. any care will be struck with one general feature in them. Their writers almost universally doubt whether any Ministry, however Conservative, will for any long period stand firm against " Socialist " encroachments. This is set down usually, especially by the Times' corre- spondent, to personal weakness in the Ministry, or to M. Carnot's desire to keep all Liberals together in view of his own re-election, or to the system of grouping, under which, in France as in England, the tail very often wags the dog. All these causes, it is probable, have a certain effect ; but the phenomenon endures so persistently, that there must be a deeper and more continuous reason for it ; and we believe it to be this. The section of Frenchmen who have adopted what is called the " Socialist " idea—that is, who will sacrifice any other cause in order to make the wage-receivers of the country more comfortable—is more powerful in France than abroad it is commonly supposed to be. The peasantry who own land, or work on the metayer system, which is imperfect ownership, or hire farms, as in England, for money-rents, form still a large majority of the popu- lation, and may be considered, as far as their interests are concerned, free from the Socialist bias. They do not desire Collectivism, they abhor Anarchism, and they are not sincerely desirous of very high wages for industrials, which, as they perceive, will in the end affect their own pockets in the price they pay for goods. They can govern France if they please, and. with a resolute leader they might try to do it ; but the other side also has serious force behind it. If we Understand Mr. Drage's figures in his recent Report to the British Government, the industrials of France, aided by the class of agricul- tural labourers who own no land, and who sympathise with artisan discontent, make up a total of twelve millions, or a fraction less than a third of the whole population. The whole of this great multitude displays the French foible, the over-readiness to adopt "ideas," and has for the moment been captured by the idea named on the Continent "Socialism," that is, in reality, the idea that some social change ought to be made by which the position of wage-earners shall be improved. Most of them probably think that the best plan would. be Collec- tivism, that is, the ownership of all the means of employ- ment by the State ; but they are not as a whole bigoted to this idea, and would accept any scheme having, or seeming likely to have, the desired result, namely, a material alteration for the better in their own position, especially with regard to the security of their grip upon their work. Owing to causes we cannot detail here, dismissal is regarded in France much more seriously than it is in England, and especially as much more unjust, the notion clearly being that a man who works acquires a kind of property-right in his work. The " Socialists " as a whole desire larger wages, a share in profits, and a control more or less com- plete of the workshops' or mines' internal discipline. It is natural that any Government, however Conserva- tive, should wish to win over this immense body of opinion. Those who hold it often hold the balance of power as between the " Monarchical " and the Republican peasants—a fact illustrated in the Chamber whenever the Right and the-Extremiste combine ;—they always maintain an ascendency in the cities ; and if they could be perma- nently conciliated, the "Army of Revolution" might be disbanded for a century. This of itself would incline French politicians at least to listen to notions which they might otherwise consider wild ; and there is another reason beside. French politicians are Frenchmen like the rest, and all Frenchmen are impressed with the view, sedulously fostered by all literature and heated by the prevailing pessimism, that the industrial classes, as distinguished from the peasantry, are in a miserable position, and ought somehow to be raised out of it. That view undoubtedly has a certain basis, if only because these classes throughout France are seriously and continuously overworked, the hours of labour varying from seventy-two to eighty per week, or being at least one-third longer than those endured by any considerable class of English urban workmen. The states- men believe tat with such hours purchased for low wages, content is not possible ; and listen therefore to Socialist protests in what we may call a spirit of calculating benevo- lence. The total effect of this spirit, combined with fear of the vote, and with an idea widely current in France that the drift of things makes for Socialism, is to make any Government " weak " that is disinclined to offer a blank resistance to any proposal, however wild, which does not in- volve direct and patent confiscation. This disinclination is probably increased, rather than decreased, by Anarchism ; for though Anarchism stirs the respectable classes to fury, the idea of French politicians is that its soil is Socialism, and that if the latter can but be pacified, or made innocuous, by the relief of the really distressed, the dangerous movement can be repressed by a sufficient application of force.
We think we have stated the broad facts accurately, and we watch with ever-increasing curiosity to detect the line on which they will sooner or later compel the Republican statesmen to action. It may take the line of a general Poor-law, which Louise Michel, after studying the London workhouses, declared would kill Anarchism ; but we are by no means certain that this is the movement to be immediately expected. The peasants dread a Poor- law, which they will have to pay for, and which will do themselves little good ; and it is by no means certain that some experiment in Collectivism will not be tried first. French statesmen, accustomed to a bureaucratic system, have much more faith in the competence of the State to do anything it likes than Englishmen have ; they have a sort of mania for regulating everything, and they are not free from the Socialist idea that discontent with indi- vidualism is of itself proof that another system should be tried. If they should finally give way, it will be in the mining department that the experiment will be made, as M. Goblet, now the Radical spokesman, has indeed proposed,—first, because the miners are the most dangerous and united of the discontented ; secondly, because the mines cover a manageable area ; and thirdly, because mines in France are not, in theory, private property. They belong ultimately to the State, which cedes its right of working them to private companies by renewable " concessions ; " and. could, we imagine, on a fair basis of compensation, resume its ownership. If the experiment succeeded, it would be extended to other industrial departments, and thus gradually the State would become the grand employer of labour,—the avowed dream of the Socialist party. The prospect of such an experiment may appear a dream to those who see only how vigorously the majority in France defends the right of individual property, but we suspect that majority is largely made up of the peasants' vote, and that so long as the land was left untouched, the peasants might allow experimental legislation of a very far-reaching kind. Cer- tainly they would allow it, rather than an effective Poor- law, the expense of which would fall upon themselves. We do not, we need scarcely say, believe the experiment would succeed. The experience of the National Work- shops, instituted in 1848, shows that the State has not the power to enforce severe labour, their employs, when counted in tens of thousands, claiming a right to work as they like, and enforcing it either by votes or by strikes, which, when the State is the employer, are indistinguishable from insurrections. Mere bread must be guaranteed, as it was in 1848, or the State appears to be inhuman ; and under that guarantee the natural instinct for idleness, which is only curbed in the human race by the terrible discipline of hunger, is sure to reassert itself. The result would be either that the mines would fall into anarchy, or that their produce would become too costly to find a market. We quite admit that the French have some special advantages in trying the experiment, a popu- lation which does not increase, a natural talent for organi- sation, a readiness to obey elected dictators—as shown in the great experiment at Guise, reported on by Mr. Drage —and a curious liking for the State, because the State a hundred years ago broke up feudality. But these advan- tages are not sufficient to alter human nature, or to make the worker who grudges to the capitalist his profit, content that another and bigger capitalist should earn one. To work without profit after purchasing the means of production would ruin any Treasury, and the community would, in the end, be face to face with this proposition :—" Are you prepared to be heavily taxed in order that miners, or rail- way employs, shall be more comfortable and less worked than the majority of yourselves ?" The gradual dry- ing-up of individual wealth, owing to the absence of a field for the employment of private capital, would make the amount of that taxation exceedingly heavy. We need say nothing of the injury done to national character when all industrial careers, except agricu].ture, had been closed, and every industrial had .become, in fact, either a soldier with pay, or an officer with a salary ; for, we believe, long before that stage had been reached, ex- perience would have taught the nation the terrible lesson which the Ateliers Nationaux read to one generation. Still, the presumption that an experiment will fail does not always prevent its being tried ; and we see signs in France that a popular Chamber may permit this one, as an alternative to the exceedingly" strong Government which the peasantry have hitherto appeared to prefer, and which Socialism, if it became aggressive, would render indispens- able. It is because every great strike brings the experi- ment a little nearer, that successive French Cabinets watch strikes with such obvious apprehension, and are so reluc- tant to place the State in any position in which it must either use force, or buy out the capitalists who demand forcible protection.
Previous page
