COMMUNISM AMONGST US.
Nor to be frightened at a word, is advice as old as the hills, and as much needed as ever. More than once in our history " Po- pery " has been the cant term of reproach cast upon those who were obnoxious to dislike ; and, without attaching any definite sense to the application of the term, the populace were ready to stone a Popish recusant, inflicted from some vague traditional hor- ror at the old burnings in the name of Popery, partly under the influence of mere bigot excitement for the sake of the excitement, and partly because the oppressed state of the Papists lent a morbid stimulus to that excitement—as the dogs in the street fall upon one who flies from a beating and worry him. "Materialist" was another word, especially used by those who
disliked disturbing old anti-scientific apathies. " Radical " handed over the patriotic politician to be pilloried by the popu- lace • and the pensive public who stoned the Prince Regent were equally willing to hoot a white hat, because the popular orator Henry Hunt wore one. The opinions implied by the word might have called forth cheers, but the epithet was the pretext for hoot,- ings. Popery has left its seat at Rome; Materialism is declining even with the most sceptical and prosaical of natural philoso- phers; Radicalism is past—it is now a term of retrograde sig- nification.
The word of the day for producing political terror is " Com- munism " or "Socialism." Not that the thing indicated by the words is so scouted as it has been by political reasoners. Per- haps that is the reason. From whatsoever motive, the word is applied at random to excite the passions against some object of dislike ; but the most remarkable fact is that it is not applied in some cases. If it has any substantial and tangible meaning- at all, Communism is gaining ground amongst us in high places. We charge that most respectable and distinguished body the Cor- poration of London with Communistic tendencies. The Times writes Communism without knowing it ; and Mr. Henry Drum- mond talks in the most alarming style.
The Times denounces the "greedy and reckless speculation " "which rears a motley crowd of dusky and unseemly tenements, as the conditions of the labour-market have been ascertained, or the means of providing for their future inhabitants calculated." And it is this "speculative greed," according to the Times, "which has inverted the usual proportion of house value and local taxation." In objecting to these things, of course the jour- nalist would have them altered ; checking the natural free-trade operations of supply and demand in the building trade crushing profit, to provide better for the moral and physical welfare of cer- tain classes; and so attaining a more equally diffused happiness, by a process of reciprocal cooperation in promoting mutual inte- rests. What term would be applicable to that state of things?
Again, by objecting to inequalities of assessment, the writer would seem to indicate a levelling of the poor-law rate through- out the country. Of course it must be sufficient everywhere— sufficient, equally diffused, and all-prevalent? In other words, subsistence for all who need it, provided by the state ; a species of Communism, though it is not one of a high order, nor one which, if the expression may pass, would be sanctioned by a Commu- nistical political economist.
The project of the London Corporation is to buy estates in Ire- land, not for the sake of the profit, but to do good—to rescue the population from misery, and establish paternal landlordism. Everybody is charmed, and a very pleasing sight it is, in these days of political indifferentism, to see that great body—so often abused for being "a close and corrupt corporation," "an obsolete relic of useless pageantries," &c.—setting an example of practical patriotism and love of human kind. Would not the Irish love the name of that Corporation, with all its mace and gowned dignity? will not its great feasts again grow worshipful in the public sight? will people talk moodily and ungraciously of corporation reform ? But the question that puzzles us to answer is, how to reconcile this step with "sound political economy," pure "self-interest," or "free competition." To us it seems a defiance of self-utilitarian- ism, of trading competition, of mere self-interest : it smacks strongly of that which is the very opposite of "the competitive system.' For Communism is not a system but a principle. As em- bodied in the systems of divers speculative writers, Communism is as various as the shades of Protestantism or any other "ism." As political economy sets itself to consider the creation of wealth, wholly and solely, and irrespectively of every other consideration, so Communism sets itself to consider the mode in which the wel- fare of men can be promoted by their mutual caperation towards a common interest. Political economy has declared that the great stimulus towards the creation of wealth is in the two spurs of want and trading competition. Communism denies that dogma, and if it made the laws would abolish individual property ; mean- while teaching men to consult mutual interests, as such, rather than separate and conflicting interests. We are not now discussing the merit of the doctrine ; but what we say is, that, right or wrong, frightful or, huntless4 it is insiduausly creeping into our practice. Mr. Henry Drummond tells the Ministers that they must have regard to the welfare of the poor; or else they will leave that duty to the Ledru-Rollins and Proudhons, who will exact more Perhaps: we have the very strongest impression that even the desire to retain office would not urge a Russell Cabinet to the length of Proudhon or Cabet. But what would Mr. Drummond propose, as a middle term ? We should like very much to have a sight of his plans, political, economical, and social, fully ex- pounded—a complete guide to Drummondism. Mr. !foreman volunteers the declaration that the object of a poor-law is not to provide for the poor, but to protect property. That is very distinct anti-Communism—as pure a form as any that we remember. It is not indeed quite accurate. Mr. Hors- man correctly describes the object of the poor-laws from Richard II. down to Edward VI.; but it was found that, to insure the peace of society, it was necessary to extend the poor-law so as to include a bond fide care for the poor ; and the New Poor-law ex- pressly goes upon the basis of the celebrated 43d of Elizabeth. Mr. Horsman may say that, in proportion as it is effective, any poor-law is chargeable with Communism, and that the amend- ments of the New Poor-law tend in that direction. Admitting the fact, we still doubt whether it is socially so dangerous as the avowal of Mr. Horsman's doctrine would be—that a poor-law is a law against the poor for the protection of property. We see Gordon riots, Swing burnings, servile war, and civil war, in that cool assertion.
The Communists of Europe may be divided into three classes. One class consists of 0 wenites, Fourierites, St. Simonians, and other sects each with its system cut and dried the second class consists of the systemless and countless multitudes in France and Germany, whose sole fixed purpose is to rise on some day of doom and sweep away the institution of property; the third, of the London Corporation, the Ten-hour Bill men, the Times and the Anti-Poor-law agitators, and the like, who are insidiously though often unconsciously insinuating the principle of Commu- nism: and it is remarkable that this class derives a collateral if unrecognized support from -some of our new-light political econo- mists —John Stuart Mill, Edward Gibbon Wakefield, and, shall we add, our favourite enemy the Morning Post.
Previous page
