THE NEW POLITICAL HEILF.SY. - Commurirsx is in possession of
every section of the Parliament, if the frequency of the imputation may be trusted. Lord John Russell accuses Mr. Feargus O'Connor of Communism • though Mr. O'Connor declares that his resolution about the "first fruits" of labour only referred to taxation,—as if he had adopted the phrase from some Socialist ally without understanding it ! Mr. Horsman seems to accuse Ministers of Communism us Ireland, since he says that the support of large bodies by a poor-law is the worst vice of that doctrine. Mr. Cobden accuses Lord Ro- bert Grosvenor of Communism, for trying to regulate the hours of journeymen bakers. Indeed, Mr. Cobden casts about the charge with the nonchalance of a man who does not account it a very grave one. The word is becoming quite familiar in Par- liament, and by familiarity is losing much of its terrors. Mem- bers are growing used to find themselves reckoned in the same category with Louis Blanc or Proudhon; and yet probably Members do not find themselves such very shocking people after all.
There does seem to be a spice of truth in the reproach. Mr. Feargus O'Connor's "first fruits" declaration was undoubted Communism, though he did not know it; but even in measures less overtly marked with the sign of that faith there is the lurk- ing element. Old "Protection" is a sort of vague, lumbering, feeble Communism; an effective poor-law does go a great way in the same direction; Lord Ashley's measures, readily as they pass current among orthodox politicians, can be justified only on grounds of the heterodox order ; Lord Robert Grosvenor's appli- cation of short time, no less than Mr. Fielden's, is of the same nature.
The worst of it is, that for all this increasing familiarity with the name and substance, the ideas on the subject are as far re- moved as possible from distinctness. Neither those who cast the reproach nor those who parry it quite perceive what it conveys. Mr. O'Connor, who utters naked Communism, disclaims it ; and legislators who adopt it in substance would be as much surprised at recognizing their own work as the Bourgeois Gentilhomme at his own achievements in "prose." Nay, some philanthropists might abandon their labours if they knew that so shocking a name could be fastened on them. The name and matter of the doctrine, therefore, are under discussion, and yet Members do not know what they are discussing. Of course, such a discussion cannot be very profitably conducted ; the questions mooted cannot be much advanced while the terminology hangs loose and the con- clusions float by unrecognized : so that, if the discussion is to be prolonged, it might be as well to come to some understanding about terms, premises, and so forth. The Honourable Commons should pass a standing order next session, that no Member—ex- empting, perhaps, those who are no longer under sixty years of age—should use the word " Communism " until he has proved his qualification to use it by showing what it means. on the other band, curious inquirers should set themselves to scent out all the Communism they can : it is fair game. Let the sharpest economists ferret it out ; let the Roebucks and Brights have at the Ashleys and the Poulett Scrop,s, and tear the vsil from their proceedings. We have already denounced the City Corporation and the Irish scheme instigated by Sir Robert Peel : let Mr. Trelawney inform against it ; we promise him half the fine upon conviction. The House of Commons, do you call it ? say, rather, the House of Communists. Expose them, Mr. Horsman ; let the world know what they are doing. Meanwhile, it might be as well if the moral police who are to deal with the secret innovators—the intellectual gendarmerie—were to overhaul their own weapons, furbish them up, and try them for use. Some are worn and need repair or cleaning. Let us have out the standing axioms and dogmas of the opposite school; which the stanchest advocates find to be put upon its defence—as they practically confess' by defending it. The two leading states- men of the Commons have thought it necessary, this session, oftener than once, to enter into an active defence of the main positions of political economy. Let us see, then, what we want overhauled for the purpose of the contest, if the discussion is to be revived in another session.
Sir Robert Peel would crush the Communistic heresy at a blow, by citing the importance of Capital—the fund for paying labour. Now what is capital ? Adam Smith calls it "stock"; in which sense, it is the subsistence and materials for continuing labour with increased productiveness. But labour cannot use more than a certain portion of stock ; and if labour produces stock in an increasing ratio, there is no occasion to take heed for any accumulation of stock beyond a certain point. Indeed, labour bestowed on producing superfluous stock would be wasted. And if superfluous stock became convertible,—if it were at the mercy of persons speculating for their own gain, without care how they deranged markets,—if it might be transferred, without any suffi- cient insight into commercial operations, so as to over-stimulate this or that trade,—if these things happened, there might be dangerous qualities attaching to this potent god of the economist, Capital. There are traditions of whole towns set to make whole marketfuls of goods after the demand for such goods had ceased —Paisley, for instance, could have supplied the United Kingdom with grey shawls, when Yorkshire had clothed it in red shawls. Have these incidents of " capital " been thoroughly investigated, described, classified, and made clear for practical use ? Because if they have not, the Economists are not quite prepared to carry on the discussion with the Communists.
"A discussion with the Communists I" cries the political eco- nomist, outraged and humiliated at the bare idea. Yet indeed it is time to go through that work, as you will admit if you note these three reasons. 1. The doctrine of Communism holds pos- session of immense numbers in France and Germany, and of many also here in England. 2. An amount of intelligence is en- gaged on that side, more or less openly, which at least claims re- spectful attention. 3. You are already in the discussion, only without knowing it, and therefore doing your work ill.
So if you can supply for ready use a completer vade-mecum to the anatomy, physiology, and functions of Capital, you will im- mensely facilitate the progress of the discussion. It must be easy, because so many are so familiar with the subject—at least they treat it with the glib familiarity of perfect knowledge. . Again, what "Competition," which the Communists de- nounce and the Economists uphold ? It is the sole stimulus to exertion, says the Economist ; the measure of market value ; the regulator of commerce and social economy. Is it all that ? Does it, for example, regulate wages in the Factory districts I—because many have a strong idea that individual competition is wholly overridden there by the overwhelming influence of a vast machinery : wages are there regulated by supposed necessities, a force repudiated by the upholders of free competition. Is the "Factory system" the child of the "Competitive system " ? If it produces cheap cottons, does it also produce individual welfare and national greatness ? For the Economists and Communists enter upon the contro- versy inversely to each other. The Economist seeks the crea- tion of wealth, presuming the happiness of men as a consequence : he considers wealth first and people afterwards. "It used to be females first, and furnitur afterwards," says Hood's nurse-maid abandoned in a fire ; "but now it's furnitur first." Mr. Horsman, an intelligent but stern economist, would cut his population ac- cording to his capital. The Communist begins at the other end— he takes the people in a given country as they are, and considers what regulations to make for their happiness. That seems a rea- sonable mode—if it is practicable. The whole question lies there; but the disputants are not arguing it on common grounds. Finally, what is " Communism "? Most of the Communists Of the better sort insist upon presenting their doctrine in the con- crete form of a system, cut and dry : by which method they lay themselves open to the inconvenience, that if you convict the 78tem of unpracticalness, the doctrine stands for confuted. But uommunism is a principle : it is the antagonism of Competition, an. u purports to rest upon the fact that if two men took counsel t4gether in order to work for their mutual interest, they would nt the aggregate obtain more than if they strove separately each to get all he could at the expense of the other. According to the CoMmunist view, that which the Economist recommends as the Bose stimulus of industry is a destructive, distracting, wasteful Mislesdipg of industry: : exemplified on a great scale by war, which is the competition for a common object in order to its ex- clusive possession. The Communist plan may be called practical Christianity—serving your neighbour as yourself. The Econo- mist declares it to be impracticable—such, be says, is the weak- ness and wickedness of human nature. Adam Smith having ex- pounded the material fruits accruing from the activity stimulated by "the higgling of the market," the Economist accepts that doctrine as a final revelation ; and when the Communist advances the opposite, he is met by the presumption, that because compe- tition stimulates industry, it is essential to industry. How are the facts ? Neither party is yet in a condition to pronounce, be- cause each party continues to describe his own class of facts, or presumptions, without deigning to take the discussion on the an- tagonist's ground.
Communism is in the position of an outlawed doctrine, and while it remains so it will continue to be destructive. The theo- rists of London and Paris may be constructive philanthropists ; but the hordes that have embraced the faith in France and Ger- many are destructive revolutionists. The philosophic Associa- tionists may represent that Communism is not a destruction but a development of property ; but what the fighting Communist means is to sweep away property. While we refuse to entertain the subject, we are refusing to understand the thing that moves those masses—we are refusing to understand the movements of Europe.
Previous page
