MR. SHAW AND MR. CHESTERTON.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1336, 13 January 1912, Page 14

MR. SHAW AND MR. CHESTERTON.

« DEBAT MSI SOCIALISM AND DEMOCRACY. An amusing debate ljctwcen Mr. Gcorgo Bernard Shaw and llr. Gilbert K. Chesterton took place at tho Memorial Hall, London, on November .'!0. Mr. Ililaire lielloc presided over the meeting, which had been arranged by the Fabian Society and tho South-West London Federation the Independent Labour party. There was a very largo attendance. The proposition debated was "That a Democrat, who is not also a Socialist, is no Gentleman," -Mr. Shaw, who opeued tho debate, said he was not there to argue anything, but to assert that a, democrat who was not also a Socialist was not a gentleman, lie said that in the most insulting personal sense of tho term. He would define/tho three terms and their alternatives. Tho alternative of gentleman was a cad. Ho did not know tho exact name of the alternative to Socialism. The alternative to a Democrat was an idolater. By Socialism he meant a state of society which proceeded from one fixed and innnutablo condition—that the entire income of the country should bo divided exactly equally between every person in the country, young or old, without regard to their industry or character, without regard to anything but the fact that thev were live human beings. He did not mean Collectivism, which was, however, a necessary condition of any arrangement of society whatever. Under every system all wealth must be divided up every day on one principlo or another. The Socialist wanted it divided equally. The Minority Report would mean slavery, but that dul not dispose of tho Minority Keport. If it meant slavery ten times over they would not be abie to avoid doing tho things the report said must bo done. Thero was no such thing as a panacea by which they could set society in the beginning on a nice, satisfactory basis so that it wolild march spontaneously and automatically forward doing justice and effecting a just and moral distribution of wealth. Thero must bo a daily output of virtue. They had a choice'betwcen different systems, all' of which involved daily adjustment, 'llio two systems before them wero the old mediaeval system and Socialism. ' At tho end of , the Eighteenth Century a number of visionaries put forward tho idea that even' person should be paid accvding to his talent or character, and that llnglish Literals believed in payment oy results. But the old modiaeval system ivas going on still. It was a system of stratified equality. Although the labourer did not get so much as tho artisan, yet practically everyone in. the samo district had the same pay. Tho profits and loss of professional men wero always. calculated on a standard of life for a'man doing that kind of work. It was only when they got into tho region of property that there were extraordinary discrepancies. All privates and all sergeants got the same. If they could concive a soldier asking for ss. moro because ho was under fire five minutes longer they would say at once that the man was a cad. Without equality politics must bo what they were at present, a mass of coriuption and imposture, and tho churches must be what they weio at present, professional conspiracies against •ha hi.man race. ' Tri<. DEMOCEATIC VILW. Mr. Chesterton said tho algcbraic for- 1 mula they wero considering consisted of threo unknown, quantities—Socialist, Democrat, and Gentleman, lie did not know whether he was a gentleman, but he was sure ho was' a Democrat—which Mr. Shaw was not. (Laughter.) The opposite of a gentleman was not a cad. Tliey might just as well say that tho opposite of a sailor was a pirate. (Laugnter.) Ho did not believe it was truo that all who were not Democrats wero idolaters. A Democrat believed in the direct action of the citizen-; on tho State. Ho defined a Socialist as a person who believed that tho monstrous distribution of modern property could only be cured by the State ■ ccercively claiming all the property and paying it back in wages. \\ hat was tho difference between that and Collectivism? Did Mr. Shaw reallv mean that a now-born babe should at once bo m receipt—he could not say enjoyment—(laughter)—of an iiicoine which would bo right and proper for a man? . While there w4o' arguments for Socialism, thero was nono which had any relation to Democracy. Socialism might produce good government, but it was not self-government. Suppose they all had wooden legs which 'they had to hand back every night to the hospital cloak-room. They would avoid a great many definite evils. It had never been show-n that process would enable the wooden-legged people to govern the hospital. lhe depriving of the ordinary man, of tho direct and absolute sense of personal property was exactly like cuttln? l»s leg and 'giving him a wooden one. There was something tragic in the loss of a leg or in tho loss of a field on which the leg had walked. There was arising a democratic excitement. That was the thing recently connected with the railway strikes, which were not in favour of Socialism, but against it. It was a revolt against State Boards—tho Conciliation Boards. It was against the very institution by which Mr. Shaw posed to cure all evils. (Laughter.) The men still had a sort of possession of their arms and legs, and they answered to the capitalist, who used alf the Socialist arguments—this will bo very bad for the "community" and so forth—as Naboth answered that great ancient Socialist Aliab: "The Lord forbid that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee." (Laughter.) Mr. Shaw argued that the baby must liave an income anyhow, and noded it moro thau tlic adult, who could produce what he wanted. How tho railway strike got into that debate he did not know. (Laughter.) The strikers were to some extent out against their own leaders in Parliament because they were not Socialistic enough. They were out for recognition and better wages, for a greater approach to equality. .Mr. Chesterton said that Socialism would be very much like the modern business office. It was very natural that the railway strikers should be out against their _ own leaders. (Laughter.) In the Socialistic community they would have fools and snobs just .as they had to-day. Each speaker bad another ten minutes.