CHAPTER IX THE SOCIALISED STATE (1) In the preceding chapter I have ventured to indicate briefly what seem to me to be the The worth principal tendencies at work in the of the State. direction of the socialising of industry. These tendencies cannot but culminate in a form of State organisation widely different from that with which we are familiar at present, although evolved therefrom. It is impossible to say what will be the outcome, say, a hundred years hence, but in broad outline it is already on the horizon, and those on the look-out are able to distinguish some of its outstanding features. The sketching of Utopias is always an interesting occupation, and in the hands of a master like Mr. H. G. Wells, who is even more of a political philosopher than a fiction writer, it may become profitable and inspiring to others. But I do not propose to attempt to describe an Utopian society. In the two chapters which follow I have set myself the humbler task of describing what is already on the way, and may fairly be expected as the result of the forces at work in our midst. In a word, we may say that our social organisation is gradually becoming moralised, in the Christian sense of the word, and the resultant will be the Socialised State. What is the State? Do many of us ever ask ourselves what the State is for, or why we should take it for granted as we do? What is the good of the compound and perplexing facts called Great Britain, Russia, Switzerland, or the United States? To be sure we have to take them for granted, whether we will or no, but are they any use, and, if so, what? The thorough-going anarchist would answer these questions right off by saying that the State is no use whatever, but only a hindrance to the best kind of life for human beings, and, therefore, that it is desirable to get rid of it as soon as possible by assassinating rulers and paralysing governments. He will maintain that after this immediate end has been achieved things will settle down comfortably, and that we shall be able to get on all the better without artificial restraints. But this will not do at all, and no ordinary sensible man would concede its reasonableness for a moment. If every human being on earth were suddenly to wake up to-morrow with an ideally unselfish disposition; if all criminals were transformed into saints; if prisons, workhouses, and lunatic asylums were no longer needed, we should still require to be communally marshalled and directed if we wished to live the best kind of civilised life possible to human wisdom and power over Nature. As I have shown above, we should have to combine in order to produce material wealth efficiently; and without such combination even the principal advantages of leisure and culture would be impossible. If, too, the wider the scale of such combination the greater the proportionate output, it follows that at present, and for a long while to come, the State will have to be the final unit of economic organisation for the sake of realising the best kind of life. The time may come when the whole world will become one centrally directed society of societies, with the sole object of doing the best for mankind without discriminating in favour of any individual or race. But the most daring dreamer will hardly attempt to forecast what may happen then or what the world would be like. At present, therefore, we may content ourselves with the recognition that the State is de facto the most convenient unit for the organisation of society on a socialistic basis. The electors of Great Britain can determine, for instance, what shall be done in this country, but they cannot lay down any rules for Germany; even for the sake of mankind, therefore, our most earnest effort should be directed towards socialising the potentialities of this one country. Even as things are already, the civilised State is the principal guarantee of that comparative order and safety without which production, on anything like an elaborate scale, would be impossible. We have only to extend this in order to make the State, not merely the guardian of production, but its intelligent director. This, then, is the principal value of the modern State. It is a necessary means to the realisation of the highest kind of life at present in our power to achieve. Man was not meant to live alone. There is no individual excellence which does not require a social expression, as we have seen when considering the controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees. No human being can be good or wise apart from his relation to other human beings. The better those relations can be adjusted, therefore, the better for the quality of the individual life. "Man Material But, again, this objective requires the careful and harmonious regulation of the material resources of the body politic. cannot live by bread alone," but neither basis of all can he live without bread. The greater higher life. our communal command of the potentialities of the material world in which we live, the greater the extent of our spiritual possibilities. This may be hotly denied by some moralists and some religious people, but it is surely demonstrable from ordinary human experience. To live for luxury is a bad thing, and may lead to the overthrow of a nation, but that is only because the means have been mistaken for the end. What is ordinarily called materialism in practice is but spirituality foreshortened; it is the taking of a wrong perspective upon the meaning of life. In order to demonstrate the truth of this observation, let us ask ourselves why any man Wealth over life. wants to be rich. The form of the answer depends partly upon temperament, but I suppose we should all admit that one reason is that means power as things are at present the possession of wealth means power over others. In fact, we might quite truly say that individually or communally the acquisition of wealth means the acquisition of power over life. But many men value riches chiefly because they represent power, consideration, and rule of a certain kind in one's relations with one's fellows. It is no use decrying this motive, for it is very strong, and human nature is largely constituted that way. There is an old saying that money is power, and so it unquestionably is in the world as we know it. The man with money can force his way into almost any society he chooses. If he is largeminded enough not to care for the society of dukes and duchesses so long as he can exercise practical influence in society at large, he can do many things that the ordinary man cannot, even if possessed of education and social advantages. If his financial operations are on a gigantic scale he can even make kings and governments take him into account. Rumour has it that he can make wars between nation and nation occasionally when it suits his purpose. If he wants to cut a figure in national politics he always has a long start over the man of limited means. If he is fortunate enough to have brains as well as money he is generally sure of one of the foremost positions in the State, and does not need to wait |