SOCIALISM AS A RELIGON.

Otago Witness, Volume 25, Issue 2321, 25 August 1898, Page 59

SOCIALISM AS A RELIGON.

By 0. M. { , : '. : 1 ' ' . ; i > ; , - i ' [ : : \ • i ' I j ( 1 1 ] ' x t c t c ,r, r J c j s t ; \ i c ? * c t t * * ' t 1 s * , t 1 f * 8 \ c c f * ! j \ p i x ( ] 1 * 1 * J ■ ] t ( « ( j . ^ . , c c . c c i

Socialism as a religion, in contradistinction I to Socialism as a State policy —the soul in J opposition to the body; the motive, not the action. That is what we have to consider. The mere belief that the State may rightly take over certain institutions is one thing, the ethical standard uplifted by the men who hold this belief is another. By it we see the Socialist as a quaint and inconsistent type of man eminently worthy of our study. First, his childlike faith in his fellow man, especially characteristic of that sub-class Avhich has thrown off all faith in everything else. That there are more Atheists (I use the term in no derogatory sense) in the ranks of Socialism than in any other class is one among many instances of human inconsistency. Put it in words: The less belief in God, the more in man. Prove that we are of the earth earthy, and you give us our certificate that shows us divine. Such is the creed of the Socialist-Atheist. He maintains the exclusively animal nature of our origin, yet is confidently looking forward to a time when we shall practice a self-abnegation that ! angels might find difficult. The creed of the Socialist simple is not-much easier of comprehension. The Socialist who holds his Socialism as a religion is looking forward to a certain " wave of humanity" that is to sweep over the whole world. As Herbert Spencer points out, such a thing is unprecedented, impossible. It never has been, and, so far as emotions-are concerned, what never Ims been never will be. The emotions that move us to-day are the emotions that moved us thousands of years ago, " when men were yet weak on their hind legs, and fought for their wives," and when " man made God in his own image," as men make their gods today. Were such a wave of humanity possible it would simply share the fate of the religious wave —i sudden enthusiasm, succeeded by formalism and neglect. Socialists, and others, have an idea that there has been a general all round improven>euC in moral conduct of late. Were that the case the Sociali&t spirit, given time enough, would grow of itself. But is it the case? It seems to me that as we progress in some things we slip back in others. With Jess vice and drunkenness, we have more commercial immorality. And commercial immorality, with its accompaniment the huckstering spirit, is a more serious obstacle to the Socialistic ideal than an occasional bout of animalism. The money "grubbiny" of a generation ago was bad enough, but the money " grabb:ng" of to-day is a lower depth. Time was when the bankrupt no more thought of reapnearing in society than the convicted felon. For an example of refinement now quite out of date we need only recall Charlotte Bronte's indignant denial of the .c. charge thai she had utilised the success of ,r " Jane Eyre" to put forward an inferior, earlier work, " Wutheirn Heights," then supposed to be hers. The spirit of Charlotte Bi-cute was not meiely her own fastidiousnesf—it was the spirit of her age. We need scarcely ask if it, is the spirit of ours. In the wider fields of morality there have been periods that put the boasted enlighlenmeut of our present so-called Christianised civilisation to shame. To go no further back, what of Rome and its early days, when for five centuries there was not among the citizens a single case of divorce, though a man might legally divorce his wife for nothing! Mcthinks I see my Socialist friend pricking up his ears. " Aha," says he. " that proves my case. See what public opinion has done, and learn what it may yet do." Certainly, my good friend, if it were not for one important fact. This fine feeling of which I have cited an instance is • purely a virtue of the aristocracy, always observable where there is a virtual slave class, and nowl-ei'e else, in any country of any degree of population. When an aristocralic nation becomes democratic the finer sentiment dies. It does not, unhappily, spread to the lower classes, as we might imagine it would, and for this reason -. The Roman citizen loved certain virtues, not for their own sake, buft because they differentiated him from tho rabble. " Civis Romanus sum" was his proud boa,st, but if all had been "cives Romani" where would have been the honour? It is a lamentable fact that we often progress more from hate than love: and vanity is the root from which many good i actions spring. The Spartans understood human nature when they inculcated tempcranee on their sons by making drunkenness the vice of the slaves. Hod there been no slaves the Spartan boys, failing to associate j this vice with meanness and servility, would probably have got drunk themselves. Something akin to this may be seen in the oldfashioned novel where the heroine with "proud, flashing eye" declares that "ho Montmorency ever told a lie," or in the blatant "patriotism" of J. M. Barrie and Co., with their belief in the Scotch as the epitome of all virtues. Family pride and national pride will help in keeping us from certain meannesses, but it always rests on the fact that other people are not Scotch or not Montmorencys. Otherwise it would have | no strength. Thus, when a nation becomes democratic you notice an improvement in general morality, and at the same time a | ' loss of that finer and more generous feeling ( r on which religious Socialism depends. { Talking to a Socialist is like conversing with a clever lunatic. At the present date he is no vapid denouncer, but a man of much learning —sometimes the " much learning j that doth make men mad." But he also reads what the other side say (he may even condescend to read this), and that is more than most "faddists" ever do. Clearly, con- 1 j cisely, he puts his arguments; you under- |- stand, you may not agree, but you see a' meaning; and" then —then conies the wild j burst of insanity: "Why shouldn't men be paid the same!" So 'Was heard at cur « Fabiam Society some time ago —"Why shouldn't men be paid the same!" r \" Why shouldn't I walk on my OAvn fore- t head?" says Lewis Carroll's dream-alligator in " Sylvie and Bruno.") " Why shouldn't they?" Exactly. And why „ shouldn't the Fabian Society start the syste:n among its own members? For my part . I should dearly love to see them come up to ' the chairman's table every fortnightly meeking, deposit their cash? and then cheerfully c sxwah the equal re-distribufcioa. I much, fear

the first such distribution would be the lafo But, seriously, why is nothing of this sort attempted? I don't want to hear what tha Socialists are effecting over in America or Africa. All the Socialists in the world seem to be volubly explaining what noble things the Socialists somewhere else are doing.. What of the Dunedin Sodalists? Where ard their Marcuses and Mercias to face the modern lions of competition.' and greed. We have no Marcuses, because we have no Mercias. Women, the first converts to any, real religion, are here backward — a bad sign. We men, philanthropists to their finger tips, do not much desire philanthropists as husbands. Their ideal (working-day ideal, thafc is ; like Beatrice, they have another for Sundays) is the man wlio doesn't care a rap i| the whole world goes to ruin so long as hia wife and his children are provided for. Socialism has had its leaders and martyrs— * what cause has not? — but that the mass of Socialists are a bit better or more self-sacri-ficing than other men I very much doubt. And if a religion is not enthusiastic in its early stages when will it be?