SOCIALISM IN CEREALS.
IT is an agreeable variety when Socialism exchanges the professor's chair or the demagogue's platform for an arena in which it is forced to express itself in terms of practical legislation. In England this change is not often witnessed. Socialism is omnipresent in the monthly magazines, occasionally parades the streets, and now and again peeps out in an obscure corner of a Ministerial Bill. But it commonly keeps clear of the House of Commons, or, if it does assert itself, avoids tying itself down to any working proposal. The English Socialist is a very academical person. He may say and do things which seem hardly consistent with this character, but the dis- crepancy is only superficial. In the sense of loving abstract resolutions—if, indeed, he gets so far as that—rather than Bills which have been put into working shape by a com- petent draughtsman, he is instinct with the academical temper. In France, things have passed beyond this stage, and a Socialist never feels more at his ease than when drawing up a projet de loi. It suits his taste for precision and exactness, even in things which to Englishmen seem least to admit of them.
This is illustrated in an interesting debate which has been going on in the Chamber of Deputies on an amendment moved by M. Jaures to a Government Bill dealing with the duties on corn. M. Jaures' proposal is to make the import of wheat a State monopoly. At present the trade is in the hands of middlemen, and, as in all trades managed by a ring of speculators, it is subject to great fluctuations of price. In modern times the only attempts made to check these fluctuations have been in the direction either of Protection or of Free-trade. For Free-traders, says M. Jaures, " the entire planet is the field of battle ;" while Protectionists try to set up barriers which only result in making "as many distinct battle- grounds as there are distinct nations." M. Jaures' de- scription of the weak points of these two systems was extremely telling. The universal rivalry demanded by Free-trade creates or aggravates inequalities of fortunes. Protection, on the other hand, offers only half-measures, which are generally "inconsistencies without being reme- dies." They may prevent the agriculturist from dying, but they do not help him to live. Socialism stands out- side both these systems. They belong to a society which is passing away, and they alike help to convince the peasantry that there is but one "clear, efficacious, and decisive" way out of their misery—the State monopoly of imports. M. Jaures was not in the least disturbed by the analogies of the Roman Empire and of Egypt under Joseph. Those who em- ploy them as objections to his scheme, do not see what it is that marks them off from the present proposal. In Rome and in Egypt, the nation did not exist. The economic sovereignty then belonged to privileged oligarchies, as it still belongs to their descendants. But now there is a nation waiting to take their place and functions upon itself,—a nation which is already organised politically, and which Socialists wish to organise economically. Left to the tender mercies of speculators in corn, Paris may, at any moment, starve. Under a State monopoly, there would always be enough of corn in the country, and never too much. The great cities would no longer be exposed to famine, while the peasantry would enjoy the advantage of unvarying prices. The equation between the two needs can be worked out successfully by the State, and by the State alone. And then, as a sensible bribe to the agricul- turists, he suggested a normal price which would " con- tain in itself a large element of Protection." With a minimum price thus fixed by the State, the agricultural working class would have the same advantage that Social- ism proposes to secure to the town workman in the shape of a minimum wage. And both alike would be guarded against the invasion of foreign labour. Here, however, M. Jaures became less intelligible than he had hitherto been. Socialism has always identified itself with the brotherhood of man, and risen superior to such petty considerations as race differences or national boundaries. How, then, can M. Jaures propose with any consistency that Frenchmen shall banish their brethren ? The difficulty is obvious ; and we can hardly doubt that M. Jaures sees it as plainly as any one else ; otherwise, why did he, at this particular point, exchange his admirably clear method of exposition for the meaningless obscurity of a fine phrase ? Socialism is to protect the French workmen by " putting the Inter- national of well-being in the place of the International of misery." If these words either have, or were meant to have, any meaning—and on both points scepticism is per- missible—it must be that when the world is Socialist, all countries will be alike prosperous, and Germans will no more need to seek to work in France, than Frenchmen will need to seek work in France. The International of well-being will keep every one at home, because he will be better off nowhere else.
M. Jaures was so persuasive, that we almost wonder that only 52 votes were given in favour of his amendment. This means, we imagine, that the mutual distrust of the peasants and the artisans is too profound to be dissipated by any amount of Socialist oratory. For it is plain that M. Jaure's scheme is vitiated by one constant fallacy. It demands for its successful working a perfectly wise and perfectly conscientious State. The French nation is roughly divided into two great classes, and, in appearance at all events, the interests of these two classes in regard to important duties are radically different. The peasant grows his own crops, and the more entirely similar produce of other coun- tries can be excluded from the French market, the better prices he himself will command. But these better prices will be mainly got from the workmen of the towns, whose interest is all the other way. To M. Jaures this constitutes no diffi- culty. The politically organised nation needs only to be eco- nomically organised to reconcile these conflicting demands. There must be a price which is the absolute best for the whole community,—best for the peasant, because it is a. living price ; best for the artisan, because it keeps his cus- tomers alive. For confirmation of this, M. Jaures might turn to England. Here trade suffers because agriculture is de- pressed. The farmer is no longer a purchaser on anything like the old scale, and all the multifarious industries which supplied the farmer's wants suffer by these wants being reduced to the lowest figure. This state of things, accord- ing to M. Jaures, springs entirely from the chaos into which society has fallen in presence of irreconcikable demands. The farmer cries out for high prices, the workman cries out for the cheap loaf. In England, as M. Jaures would probably admit, the application of his scheme is made impossible by the absence of a peasant proprietary. The artisan and the agricultural labourer are here on the same side ; they both want bread to be cheap. Consequently the agricultural interest is the interest of a comparatively small class, and this it promises to remain, in spite of all Lord Winchilsea's labours. But in France there is some degree of equality between the town element and the rural element ; and the organised nation will be able, as representing both, to do justice to both. It might be so if the organised nation were wise enough to know the exact point at which to fix the price of corn, and disinterested enough to fix it in entire disregard of class interests and class passions. But what M. Jaures' plan would really bring about is a simple see-saw. The State would be alternately swayed in the direction of high and of low prices. When the condition of the peasantry was most in evidence, it would fix a price which would " contain in itself a large element of protection," and while this force was uppermost, prices would tend to go higher. By-and-by the growing dearness of food. would bring the condition of the artisans more into evidence, and then prices would be lowered to meet a demand which, being the offspring of positive suffering, would insist on making itself heard. The action of the State would not be the resultant of these two forces ; it would be the product of each of them in succession. Apparently both the agriculturists and the artisans realise the nature of the prospect, and so long as this is the case, M. Jaures is likely to preach to unwilling ears.
Previous page
