The Press. FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 1897. EQUALITY.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9816, 27 August 1897, Page 4

The Press. FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 1897. EQUALITY.

Whatever else can be said for or against the Socialist party, they are certainly enthusiastic. Mr. Bellamy preached his curious doctrines in " Looking Backward" with all the intensity of a theological controversialist. That he is still inspired by a profound belief in his creed is clearly proved in his laftiesfc efforfc—a novel called " Equality." We have no desire to deal with this work as a romance. We may say briefly that it is much duller than " Looking Backward"—ihoagu. thafc was unnecessary — and while the new life, described in such glowing terms, geems to us supremely uninteresting, not to say inhuman, all the inhabitants of the 20fch century world are unredeemed and unmitigated prigs. Surely even a rudimentary sense of humour might have saved Mr. Bkllamy from ihe school scene, where children thirteen and fourteen years old deliver

lectures to each other and their unhappy seniors on " the Hopelessness of the Economic Outlook of the Race under Private Capitalism," and kindred subjects. "Now, Charges," says the teacher, " have we not; possibly assorted too strongly the economic im 1 o?" : '«ty of the profit system, and the hopelessness of the world's outlook for material welfare, so long as it should be tolerated ?" And Cumtoes holds forth in reply with a fluency that would do credit to Kam, Marx or M*. Hyndmxn. " Now, Florence," proceeds this remorseless pedagogue, " Tell us in what way the multitude of distinct vested interests which made up private capitalism operated to produce an antagonism towards economic inventions and improvements." And Florence, aged thirteen, far from being overwhelmed, responds with unbounded cheerfulness and enormous prolixity. Robert Bdchanan said once in the bitterness of his heart—" There are no children now—only naefcy little men and women." This would bs well inside the truth in the world as re-con-structed by Mr. Bellamy. A love of the life of liberty, eq-'Miiy,- and promiscuity is probably an acquired taste, and for ourselves, who are still in the outer darkness, we admit; that the bare possibility of such a fate for future generations is enough to encourage mankind to follow Schopenhauer's advice, and commit wholesale

suicide.

However, such matters are after all a question of taste, and we cannot quarrel with Mr. Bellamy and bis friends for lik'mg things that we dislike. What we do resenfc is tho theory that they are to be at liberty to force their revolting follies upon the unregenerate v/orld under the specious names of freedom and morality. The philosopher surveying France under the Reign of Terror sighed over the crimes accomplished in the name of freedom. Yet the Sooialists wish to work in the same

spirit as the incendiaries of the 18th century. It is wearisome and monotonous to repeat the same arguments again and again ; bub it can hardly be too strongly impressed upon the public mind that Socialists, in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, demand the right to enforce acceptance of social and political changes which no abstract argument can support, and which the whole practical experience of mankind aud the verdict of history alike condemn. Mr. Bkltamy and his fellow-fanatics calmly ignore the absolute and unqualified failure of all the efforts already made to establish Utopias such as they recommend for our acceptance. Oue would think, from reading " Looking Backwards" or " Equality," that no communities had ever yet tried to live under the socialistic condition.? in which theso propagandists delight. Novrs, the founder of the Oneida Greek Community, gives an account of no less than forty-seven communistic experi-ment-s in the United States, which, all following somewhat on the lines, had hopelessly collapsed, and that through no external pressure, bub through the inherent weakness and impracticability of their constitutions. Nokdhoff, in "his famous work on the Communistic Societies of America, describes soveiHy-two organisations in which the only modified success attained was rendered possible by the intense religious convictions of tho founders. But religion—at least what most meu and women mean by religion and morality—is as much out of date in the Bellamy world as the capitalist or private ownership in land. Even Comte's followers came to admit that the " Religion of HumaniLy" was a poor safeguard against the potty jealousies and rivalries, much moro the instinctive promptings, of the ordinary human heart. Apart from the dogmatic intolerance aud tyrannous bigotry of the Socialist creed, its worst feature is its absurd illogicality. Mow, we ask, can you expect that men and women will put up contentedly with constant direction and supervision ? How will they learn to submit to the irresponsible choice and verdict of the officials they have chosen ? How will the envious cease to be jealous and the idle cease to depend upon the exertions of others? So far as human nature has revealed itself in the history of mankind, man has not yet in the mass learned of these lessons. Surely it requires the strongest proof that any change in the conditions of social life will work such miracles before we adopt the new system, which can work only if the change is effected. But the Socialistic mind is superior to all logical considerations. No, they say, the weakness and wickedness of the human heart springs from private ownership, and the law of supply and demand. Abolish these and all men and women will be good and happy. And it is on this unproved and improbable assertion that we are asked to turn ths world upside down.

For, let our readers observe, the whole history of socialistic experiments proves exactly what one's own experience o? human nature might expecfed to show—that man resents the official tyranny of communism, and that he does not, because he snares property and relatives with others, therefore become an angel of light. " A State officialism regulating all life and prescribing how all men shall work only differs from a State priesthood telling them what to think in tho much wider, more minute searching and inevitable nature of its tyranny." The condition of Ancient Peru is the nearest historical parallel to the state of society described by Mr. Bj£Ll*my ; and there, Letgurneau tells us, " the subject was simply a machine, an automaton." One most ominous feature of their system was "an organisation of spies to examine and report upon the doings of the other officers." f Xhe Peruvians were reduced to the state of "dumb driven cattle," and their State fell to pieces at the first rude encouuter with the strong individualistic world. But would men and women, as we know them, snbrniS so tamely to the irresponsible juGs--:nfc of their fellows? "The responsible officer who would report whether Jbis full talent was honestly used by Correggio, when he was painti..j, or by Shakespeare, when he was xri'iting, or by Arkwrioht, when he was inventing, would not be easily found." Less easily would they find overseers who could estimate the various degrees of idleness, and level all avfcizaus down or up .to the same scale. The famoujs experiments in Communistic production made by Louis Blano in Paris resulted in this sad experience:—"Uniformity of payment excites a competition in idleness." In till the communities founded in America on the theories of Owen op Fouribr the result was the same. Ovtufis tells us that New Harmony fell to pieces because " there was no disinterested industry." At Bed Bank " A scholar, a clergyman and a banker" wore chosen to scrub and clean boots, and the enthusiasm in the cause was at first so strong that there was actual competition for the post of shoeblack. But what was the end of it ?

Single men would not go on working to keep other people's children; small families were jealous of large families ; and the society crumbled to fragments. Even at Brook Farm, where Emehsox, Dana, Hawthorne, Parkkr, Margaret Fiha,kr and other gifted men aud women tried to put their unselfish socialistic aims into practice, human nature and its weaknesses proved too strong for abstract theory. Aud even the most moderate temporary success in such communities has been purchased only by the sacrifice of our present conceptions of family life and social morality. Mr. Bellamy darefully slurs over the difficult question of sex relationship; and all that he has to say for Malthus is that men and women will be so good then that Malthus will be proved to be quite mistaken. The task o£ refuting such absurd illogicalities is endless; and we are inolined to beg pardon of our readers for attempting ife. We will only repeat that the form of life which l#x. Bellamy finds so much to his xt£ste would be a slavery, hopeless aud monotonous, in which the chief interest in life would be gone with the chance of individual progres-s; and that the inevitable practical failure of suoh schemes could

only bo temporarily averted by the sacrifice that they atl openly or tacitly demand—the surrender o£ our existing views of domestic life and morality.