,,political ,,ideals by ,bertrand ,russell ,,contents ,i3 ,political ,ideals ,,ii3 ,capitalism and the ,wage ,system ,,iii3 ,pitfalls in ,socialism ,,iv3 ,individual ,liberty and ,public ,control ,v3 ,national ,independence and ,internationalism ,chapter ,i3 ,political ,ideals ,in dark days1 men need a clear faith and a well-grounded hope2 and as the outcome of these1 the calm courage which takes no account of hardships by the way4 ,the times through which we are passing have afforded to many of us a confirmation of our faith4 ,we see that the things we had thought evil are really evil1 and we know more definitely than we ever did before the directions in which men must move if a better world is to arise on the ruins of the one which is now hurling itself into destruction4 ,we see that men's political dealings with one another are based on wholly wrong ideals1 and can only be saved by quite different ideals from continuing to be a source of suffering1 devastation1 and sin4 ,political ideals must be based upon ideals for the individual life4 ,the aim of politics should be to make the lives of individuals as good as possible4 ,there is nothing for the politician to consider outside or above the various men1 women1 and children who compose the world4 ,the problem of politics is to adjust the relations of human beings in such a way that each severally may have as much of good in his existence as possible4 ,and this problem requires that we should first consider what it is that we think good in the individual life4 ,to begin with1 we do not want all men to be alike4 ,we do not want to lay down a pattern or type to which men of all sorts are to be made by some means or another to approximate4 ,this is the ideal of the impatient administrator4 ,a bad teacher will aim at imposing his opinion1 and turning out a set of pupils all of whom will give the same definite answer on a doubtful point4 ,mr4 ,bernard ,shaw is said to hold that ,troilus and ,cressida is the best of ,shakespeare's plays4 ,although ,i disagree with this opinion1 ,i should welcome it in a pupil as a sign of individuality2 but most teachers would not tolerate such a heterodox view4 ,not only teachers1 but all commonplace persons in authority1 desire in their subordinates that kind of uniformity which makes their actions easily predictable and never inconvenient4 ,the result is that they crush initiative and individuality when they can1 and when they cannot1 they quarrel with it4 ,it is not one ideal for all men1 but a separate ideal for each separate man1 that has to be realized if possible4 ,every man has it in his being to develop into something good or bad3 there is a best possible for him1 and a worst possible4 ,his circumstances will determine whether his capacities for good are developed or crushed1 and whether his bad impulses are strengthened or gradually diverted into better channels4 ,but although we cannot set up in any detail an ideal of character which is to be universally applicable--although we cannot say1 for instance1 that all men ought to be industrious1 or self-sacrificing1 or fond of music--there are some broad principles which can be used to guide our estimates as to what is possible or desirable4 ,we may distinguish two sorts of goods1 and two corresponding sorts of impulses4 ,there are goods in regard to which individual possession is possible1 and there are goods in which all can share alike4 ,the food and clothing of one man is not the food and clothing of another2 if the supply is insufficient1 what one man has is obtained at the expense of some other man4 ,this applies to material goods generally1 and therefore to the greater part of the present economic life of the world4 ,on the other hand1 mental and spiritual goods do not belong to one man to the exclusion of another4 ,if one man knows a science1 that does not prevent others from knowing it2 on the contrary1 it helps them to acquire the knowledge4 ,if one man is a great artist or poet1 that does not prevent others from painting pictures or writing poems1 but helps to create the atmosphere in which such things are possible4 ,if one man is full of good-will toward others1 that does not mean that there is less good-will to be shared among the rest2 the more good-will one man has1 the more he is likely to create among others4 ,in such matters there is no possession1 because there is not a definite amount to be shared2 any increase anywhere tends to produce an increase everywhere4 ,there are two kinds of impulses1 corresponding to the two kinds of goods4 ,there are possessive impulses1 which aim at acquiring or retaining private goods that cannot be shared2 these center in the impulse of property4 ,and there are creative or constructive impulses1 which aim at bringing into the world or making available for use the kind of goods in which there is no privacy and no possession4 ,the best life is the one in which the creative impulses play the largest part and the possessive impulses the smallest4 ,this is no new discovery4 ,the ,gospel says3 ,take no thought1 saying1 ,what shall we eat8 or ,what shall we drink8 or1 ,wherewithal shall we be clothed8 ,the thought we give to these things is taken away from matters of more importance4 ,and what is worse1 the habit of mind engendered by thinking of these things is a bad one2 it leads to competition1 envy1 domination1 cruelty1 and almost all the moral evils that infest the world4 ,in particular1 it leads to the predatory use of force4 ,material possessions can be taken by force and enjoyed by the robber4 ,spiritual possessions cannot be taken in this way4 ,you may kill an artist or a thinker1 but you cannot acquire his art or his thought4 ,you may put a man to death because he loves his fellow-men1 but you will not by so doing acquire the love which made his happiness4 ,force is impotent in such matters2 it is only as regards material goods that it is effective4 ,for this reason the men who believe in force are the men whose thoughts and desires are preoccupied with material goods4 ,the possessive impulses1 when they are strong1 infect activities which ought to be purely creative4 ,a man who has made some valuable discovery may be filled with jealousy of a rival discoverer4 ,if one man has found a cure for cancer and another has found a cure for consumption1 one of them may be delighted if the other man's discovery turns out a mistake1 instead of regretting the suffering of patients which would otherwise have been avoided4 ,in such cases1 instead of desiring knowledge for its own sake1 or for the sake of its usefulness1 a man is desiring it as a means to reputation4 ,every creative impulse is shadowed by a possessive impulse2 even the aspirant to saintliness may be jealous of the more successful saint4 ,most affection is accompanied by some tinge of jealousy1 which is a possessive impulse intruding into the creative region4 ,worst of all1 in this direction1 is the sheer envy of those who have missed everything worth having in life1 and who are instinctively bent on preventing others from enjoying what they have not had4 ,there is often much of this in the attitude of the old toward the young4 ,there is in human beings1 as in plants and animals1 a certain natural impulse of growth1 and this is just as true of mental as of physical development4 ,physical development is helped by air and nourishment and exercise1 and may be hindered by the sort of treatment which made ,chinese women's feet small4 ,in just the same way mental development may be helped or hindered by outside influences4 ,the outside influences that help are those that merely provide encouragement or mental food or opportunities for exercising mental faculties4 ,the influences that hinder are those that interfere with growth by applying any kind of force1 whether discipline or authority or fear or the tyranny of public opinion or the necessity of engaging in some totally incongenial occupation4 ,worst of all influences are those that thwart or twist a man's fundamental impulse1 which is what shows itself as conscience in the moral sphere2 such influences are likely to do a man an inward danger from which he will never recover4 ,those who realize the harm that can be done to others by any use of force against them1 and the worthlessness of the goods that can be acquired by force1 will be very full of respect for the liberty of others2 they will not try to bind them or fetter them2 they will be slow to judge and swift to sympathize2 they will treat every human being with a kind of tenderness1 because the principle of good in him is at once fragile and infinitely precious4 ,they will not condemn those who are unlike themselves2 they will know and feel that individuality brings differences and uniformity means death4 ,they will wish each human being to be as much a living thing and as little a mechanical product as it is possible to be2 they will cherish in each one just those things which the harsh usage of a ruthless world would destroy4 ,in one word1 all their dealings with others will be inspired by a deep impulse of reverence4 ,what we shall desire for individuals is now clear3 strong creative impulses1 overpowering and absorbing the instinct of possession2 reverence for others2 respect for the fundamental creative impulse in ourselves4 ,a certain kind of self-respect or native pride is necessary to a good life2 a man must not have a sense of utter inward defeat if he is to remain whole1 but must feel the courage and the hope and the will to live by the best that is in him1 whatever outward or inward obstacles it may encounter4 ,so far as it lies in a man's own power1 his life will realize its best possibilities if it has three things3 creative rather than possessive impulses1 reverence for others1 and respect for the fundamental impulse in himself4 ,political and social institutions are to be judged by the good or harm that they do to individuals4 ,do they encourage creativeness rather than possessiveness8 ,do they embody or promote a spirit of reverence between human beings8 ,do they preserve self-respect8 ,in all these ways the institutions under which we live are very far indeed from what they ought to be4 ,institutions1 and especially economic systems1 have a profound influence in molding the characters of men and women4 ,they may encourage adventure and hope1 or timidity and the pursuit of safety4 ,they may open men's minds to great possibilities1 or close them against everything but the risk of obscure misfortune4 ,they may make a man's happiness depend upon what he adds to the general possessions of the world1 or upon what he can secure for himself of the private goods in which others cannot share4 ,modern capitalism forces the wrong decision of these alternatives upon all who are not heroic or exceptionally fortunate4 ,men's impulses are molded1 partly by their native disposition1 partly by opportunity and environment1 especially early environment4 ,direct preaching can do very little to change impulses1 though it can lead people to restrain the direct expression of them1 often with the result that the impulses go underground and come to the surface again in some contorted form4 ,when we have discovered what kinds of impulse we desire1 we must not rest content with preaching1 or with trying to produce the outward manifestation without the inner spring2 we must try rather to alter institutions in the way that will1 of itself1 modify the life of impulse in the desired direction4 ,at present our institutions rest upon two things3 property and power4 ,both of these are very unjustly distributed2 both1 in the actual world1 are of great importance to the happiness of the individual4 ,both are possessive goods2 yet without them many of the goods in which all might share are hard to acquire as things are now4 ,without property1 as things are1 a man has no freedom1 and no security for the necessities of a tolerable life2 without power1 he has no opportunity for initiative4 ,if men are to have free play for their creative impulses1 they must be liberated from sordid cares by a certain measure of security1 and they must have a sufficient share of power to be able to exercise initiative as regards the course and conditions of their lives4 ,few men can succeed in being creative rather than possessive in a world which is wholly built on competition1 where the great majority would fall into utter destitution if they became careless as to the acquisition of material goods1 where honor and power and respect are given to wealth rather than to wisdom1 where the law embodies and consecrates the injustice of those who have toward those who have not4 ,in such an environment even those whom nature has endowed with great creative gifts become infected with the poison of competition4 ,men combine in groups to attain more strength in the scramble for material goods1 and loyalty to the group spreads a halo of quasi-idealism round the central impulse of greed4 ,trade-unions and the ,labor party are no more exempt from this vice than other parties and other sections of society2 though they are largely inspired by the hope of a radically better world4 ,they are too often led astray by the immediate object of securing for themselves a large share of material goods4 ,that this desire is in accordance with justice1 it is impossible to deny2 but something larger and more constructive is needed as a political ideal1 if the victors of to-morrow are not to become the oppressors of the day after4 ,the inspiration and outcome of a reforming movement ought to be freedom and a generous spirit1 not niggling restrictions and regulations4 ,the present economic system concentrates initiative in the hands of a small number of very rich men4 ,those who are not capitalists have1 almost always1 very little choice as to their activities when once they have selected a trade or profession2 they are not part of the power that moves the mechanism1 but only a passive portion of the machinery4 ,despite political democracy1 there is still an extraordinary degree of difference in the power of self-direction belonging to a capitalist and to a man who has to earn his living4 ,economic affairs touch men's lives1 at most times1 much more intimately than political questions4 ,at present the man who has no capital usually has to sell himself to some large organization1 such as a railway company1 for example4 ,he has no voice in its management1 and no liberty in politics except what his trade-union can secure for him4 ,if he happens to desire a form of liberty which is not thought important by his trade-union1 he is powerless2 he must submit or starve4 ,exactly the same thing happens to professional men4 ,probably a majority of journalists are engaged in writing for newspapers whose politics they disagree with2 only a man of wealth can own a large newspaper1 and only an accident can enable the point of view or the interests of those who are not wealthy to find expression in a newspaper4 ,a large part of the best brains of the country are in the civil service1 where the condition of their employment is silence about the evils which cannot be concealed from them4 ,a ,nonconformist minister loses his livelihood if his views displease his congregation2 a member of ,parliament loses his seat if he is not sufficiently supple or sufficiently stupid to follow or share all the turns and twists of public opinion4 ,in every walk of life1 independence of mind is punished by failure1 more and more as economic organizations grow larger and more rigid4 ,is it surprising that men become increasingly docile1 increasingly ready to submit to dictation and to forego the right of thinking for themselves8 ,yet along such lines civilization can only sink into a ,byzantine immobility4 ,fear of destitution is not a motive out of which a free creative life can grow1 yet it is the chief motive which inspires the daily work of most wage-earners4 ,the hope of possessing more wealth and power than any man ought to have1 which is the corresponding motive of the rich1 is quite as bad in its effects2 it compels men to close their minds against justice1 and to prevent themselves from thinking honestly on social questions while in the depths of their hearts they uneasily feel that their pleasures are bought by the miseries of others4 ,the injustices of destitution and wealth alike ought to be rendered impossible4 ,then a great fear would be removed from the lives of the many1 and hope would have to take on a better form in the lives of the few4 ,but security and liberty are only the negative conditions for good political institutions4 ,when they have been won1 we need also the positive condition3 encouragement of creative energy4 ,security alone might produce a smug and stationary society2 it demands creativeness as its counterpart1 in order to keep alive the adventure and interest of life1 and the movement toward perpetually new and better things4 ,there can be no final goal for human institutions2 the best are those that most encourage progress toward others still better4 ,without effort and change1 human life cannot remain good4 ,it is not a finished ,utopia that we ought to desire1 but a world where imagination and hope are alive and active4 ,it is a sad evidence of the weariness mankind has suffered from excessive toil that his heavens have usually been places where nothing ever happened or changed4 ,fatigue produces the illusion that only rest is needed for happiness2 but when men have rested for a time1 boredom drives them to renewed activity4 ,for this reason1 a happy life must be one in which there is activity4 ,if it is also to be a useful life1 the activity ought to be as far as possible creative1 not merely predatory or defensive4 ,but creative activity requires imagination and originality1 which are apt to be subversive of the status quo4 ,at present1 those who have power dread a disturbance of the status quo1 lest their unjust privileges should be taken away4 ,in combination with the instinct for conventionality1#a which man shares with the other gregarious animals1 those who profit by the existing order have established a system which punishes originality and starves imagination from the moment of first going to school down to the time of death and burial4 ,the whole spirit in which education is conducted needs to be changed1 in order that children may be encouraged to think and feel for themselves1 not to acquiesce passively in the thoughts and feelings of others4 ,it is not rewards after the event that will produce initiative1 but a certain mental atmosphere4 ,there have been times when such an atmosphere existed3 the great days of ,greece1 and ,elizabethan ,england1 may serve as examples4 ,but in our own day the tyranny of vast machine-like organizations1 governed from above by men who know and care little for the lives of those whom they control1 is killing individuality and freedom of mind1 and forcing men more and more to conform to a uniform pattern4 #a ,in ,england this is called a sense of humor4 ,vast organizations are an inevitable element in modern life1 and it is useless to aim at their abolition1 as has been done by some reformers1 for instance1 ,william ,morris4 ,it is true that they make the preservation of individuality more difficult1 but what is needed is a way of combining them with the greatest possible scope for individual initiative4 ,one very important step toward this end would be to render democratic the government of every organization4 ,at present1 our legislative institutions are more or less democratic1 except for the important fact that women are excluded4 ,but our administration is still purely bureaucratic1 and our economic organizations are monarchical or oligarchic4 ,every limited liability company is run by a small number of self-appointed or copted directors4 ,there can be no real freedom or democracy until the men who do the work in a business also control its management4 ,another measure which would do much to increase liberty would be an increase of self-government for subordinate groups1 whether geographical or economic or defined by some common belief1 like religious sects4 ,a modern state is so vast and its machinery is so little understood that even when a man has a vote he does not feel himself any effective part of the force which determines its policy4 ,except in matters where he can act in conjunction with an exceptionally powerful group1 he feels himself almost impotent1 and the government remains a remote impersonal circumstance1 which must be simply endured1 like the weather4 ,by a share in the control of smaller bodies1 a man might regain some of that sense of personal opportunity and responsibility which belonged to the citizen of a city-state in ancient ,greece or medieval ,italy4 ,when any group of men has a strong corporate consciousness--such as belongs1 for example1 to a nation or a trade or a religious body--liberty demands that it should be free to decide for itself all matters which are of great importance to the outside world4 ,this is the basis of the universal claim for national independence4 ,but nations are by no means the only groups which ought to have self-government for their internal concerns4 ,and nations1 like other groups1 ought not to have complete liberty of action in matters which are of equal concern to foreign nations4 ,liberty demands self-government1 but not the right to interfere with others4 ,the greatest degree of liberty is not secured by anarchy4 ,the reconciliation of liberty with government is a difficult problem1 but it is one which any political theory must face4 ,the essence of government is the use of force in accordance with law to secure certain ends which the holders of power consider desirable4 ,the coercion of an individual or a group by force is always in itself more or less harmful4 ,but if there were no government1 the result would not be an absence of force in men's relations to each other2 it would merely be the exercise of force by those who had strong predatory instincts1 necessitating either slavery or a perpetual readiness to repel force with force on the part of those whose instincts were less violent4 ,this is the state of affairs at present in international relations1 owing to the fact that no international government exists4 ,the results of anarchy between states should suffice to persuade us that anarchism has no solution to offer for the evils of the world4 ,there is probably one purpose1 and only one1 for which the use of force by a government is beneficent1 and that is to diminish the total amount of force used m the world4 ,it is clear1 for example1 that the legal prohibition of murder diminishes the total amount of violence in the world4 ,and no one would maintain that parents should have unlimited freedom to ill-treat their children4 ,so long as some men wish to do violence to others1 there cannot be complete liberty1 for either the wish to do violence must be restrained1 or the victims must be left to suffer4 ,for this reason1 although individuals and societies should have the utmost freedom as regards their own affairs1 they ought not to have complete freedom as regards their dealings with others4 ,to give freedom to the strong to oppress the weak is not the way to secure the greatest possible amount of freedom in the world4 ,this is the basis of the socialist revolt against the kind of freedom which used to be advocated by laissez-faire economists4 ,democracy is a device--the best so far invented--for diminishing as much as possible the interference of governments with liberty4 ,if a nation is divided into two sections which cannot both have their way1 democracy theoretically insures that the majority shall have their way4 ,but democracy is not at all an adequate device unless it is accompanied by a very great amount of devolution4 ,love of uniformity1 or the mere pleasure of interfering1 or dislike of differing tastes and temperaments1 may often lead a majority to control a minority in matters which do not really concern the majority4 ,we should none of us like to have the internal affairs of ,great ,britain settled by a parliament of the world1 if ever such a body came into existence4 ,nevertheless1 there are matters which such a body could settle much better than any existing instrument of government4 ,the theory of the legitimate use of force in human affairs1 where a government exists1 seems clear4 ,force should only be used against those who attempt to use force against others1 or against those who will not respect the law in cases where a common decision is necessary and a minority are opposed to the action of the majority4 ,these seem legitimate occasions for the use of force2 and they should be legitimate occasions in international affairs1 if an international government existed4 ,the problem of the legitimate occasions for the use of force in the absence of a government is a different one1 with which we are not at present concerned4 ,although a government must have the power to use force1 and may on occasion use it legitimately1 the aim of the reformers to have such institutions as will diminish the need for actual coercion will be found to have this effect4 ,most of us abstain1 for instance1 from theft1 not because it is illegal1 but because we feel no desire to steal4 ,the more men learn to live creatively rather than possessively1 the less their wishes will lead them to thwart others or to attempt violent interference with their liberty4 ,most of the conflicts of interests1 which lead individuals or organizations into disputes1 are purely imaginary1 and would be seen to be so if men aimed more at the goods in which all can share1 and less at those private possessions that are the source of strife4 ,in proportion as men live creatively1 they cease to wish to interfere with others by force4 ,very many matters in which1 at present1 common action is thought indispensable1 might well be left to individual decision4 ,it used to be thought absolutely necessary that all the inhabitants of a country should have the same religion1 but we now know that there is no such necessity4 ,in like manner it will be found1 as men grow more tolerant in their instincts1 that many uniformities now insisted upon are useless and even harmful4 ,good political institutions would weaken the impulse toward force and domination in two ways3 first1 by increasing the opportunities for the creative impulses1 and by shaping education so as to strengthen these impulses2 secondly1 by diminishing the outlets for the possessive instincts4 ,the diffusion of power1 both in the political and the economic sphere1 instead of its concentration in the hands of officials and captains of industry1 would greatly diminish the opportunities for acquiring the habit of command1 out of which the desire for exercising tyranny is apt to spring4 ,autonomy1 both for districts and for organizations1 would leave fewer occasions when governments were called upon to make decisions as to other people's concerns4 ,and the abolition of capitalism and the wage system would remove the chief incentive to fear and greed1 those correlative passions by which all free life is choked and gagged4 ,few men seem to realize how many of the evils from which we suffer are wholly unnecessary1 and that they could be abolished by a united effort within a few years4 ,if a majority in every civilized country so desired1 we could1 within twenty years1 abolish all abject poverty1 quite half the illness in the world1 the whole economic slavery which binds down nine tenths of our population2 we could fill the world with beauty and joy1 and secure the reign of universal peace4 ,it is only because men are apathetic that this is not achieved1 only because imagination is sluggish1 and what always has been is regarded as what always must be4 ,with good-will1 generosity1 intelligence1 these things could be brought about4 ,chapter ,,ii3 ,capitalism and the ,wage ,system ,i ,the world is full of preventible evils which most men would be glad to see prevented4 ,nevertheless1 these evils persist1 and nothing effective is done toward abolishing them4 ,this paradox produces astonishment in inexperienced reformers1 and too often produces disillusionment in those who have come to know the difficulty of changing human institutions4 ,war is recognized as an evil by an immense majority in every civilized country2 but this recognition does not prevent war4 ,the unjust distribution of wealth must be obviously an evil to those who are not prosperous1 and they are nine tenths of the population4 ,nevertheless it continues unabated4 ,the tyranny of the holders of power is a source of needless suffering and misfortune to very large sections of mankind2 but power remains in few hands1 and tends1 if anything1 to grow more concentrated4 ,i wish first to study the evils of our present institutions1 and the causes of the very limited success of reformers in the past1 and then to suggest reasons for the hope of a more lasting and permanent success in the near future4 ,the war has come as a challenge to all who desire a better world4 ,the system which cannot save mankind from such an appalling disaster is at fault somewhere1 and cannot be amended in any lasting way unless the danger of great wars in the future can be made very small4 ,but war is only the final flower of an evil tree4 ,even in times of peace1 most men live lives of monotonous labor1 most women are condemned to a drudgery which almost kills the possibility of happiness before youth is past1 most children are allowed to grow up in ignorance of all that would enlarge their thoughts or stimulate their imagination4 ,the few who are more fortunate are rendered illiberal by their unjust privileges1 and oppressive through fear of the awakening indignation of the masses4 ,from the highest to the lowest1 almost all men are absorbed in the economic struggle3 the struggle to acquire what is their due or to retain what is not their due4 ,material possessions1 in fact or in desire1 dominate our outlook1 usually to the exclusion of all generous and creative impulses4 ,possessiveness--the passion to have and to hold--is the ultimate source of war1 and the foundation of all the ills from which the political world is suffering4 ,only by diminishing the strength of this passion and its hold upon our daily lives can new institutions bring permanent benefit to mankind4 ,institutions which will diminish the sway of greed are possible1 but only through a complete reconstruction of our whole economic system4 ,capitalism and the wage system must be abolished2 they are twin monsters which are eating up the life of the world4 ,in place of them we need a system which will hold in cheek men's predatory impulses1 and will diminish the economic injustice that allows some to be rich in idleness while others are poor in spite of unremitting labor2 but above all we need a system which will destroy the tyranny of the employer1 by making men at the same time secure against destitution and able to find scope for individual initiative in the control of the industry by which they live4 ,a better system can do all these things1 and can be established by the democracy whenever it grows weary of enduring evils which there is no reason to endure4 ,we may distinguish four purposes at which an economic system may aim3 first1 it may aim at the greatest possible production of goods and at facilitating technical progress2 second1 it may aim at securing distributive justice2 third1 it may aim at giving security against destitution2 and1 fourth1 it may aim at liberating creative impulses and diminishing possessive impulses4 ,of these four purposes the last is the most important4 ,security is chiefly important as a means to it4 ,state socialism1 though it might give material security and more justice than we have at present1 would probably fail to liberate creative impulses or produce a progressive society4 ,our present system fails in all four purposes4 ,it is chiefly defended on the ground that it achieves the first of the four purposes1 namely1 the greatest possible production of material goods1 but it only does this in a very short-sighted way1 by methods which are wasteful in the long run both of human material and of natural resources4 ,capitalistic enterprise involves a ruthless belief in the importance of increasing material production to the utmost possible extent now and in the immediate future4 ,in obedience to this belief1 new portions of the earth's surface are continually brought under the sway of industrialism4 ,vast tracts of ,africa become recruiting grounds for the labor required in the gold and diamond mines of the ,rand1 ,rhodesia1 and ,kimberley2 for this purpose1 the population is demoralized1 taxed1 driven into revolt1 and exposed to the contamination of ,european vice and disease4 ,healthy and vigorous races from ,southern ,europe are tempted to ,america1 where sweating and slum life reduce their vitality if they do not actually cause their death4 ,what damage is done to our own urban populations by the conditions under which they live1 we all know4 ,and what is true of the human riches of the world is no less true of the physical resources4 ,the mines1 forests1 and wheat-fields of the world are all being exploited at a rate which must practically exhaust them at no distant date4 ,on the side of material production1 the world is living too fast2 in a kind of delirium1 almost all the energy of the world has rushed into the immediate production of something1 no matter what1 and no matter at what cost4 ,and yet our present system is defended on the ground that it safeguards progress6 ,it cannot be said that our present economic system is any more successful in regard to the other three objects which ought to be aimed at4 ,among the many obvious evils of capitalism and the wage system1 none are more glaring than that they encourage predatory instincts1 that they allow economic injustice1 and that they give great scope to the tyranny of the employer4 ,as to predatory instincts1 we may say1 broadly speaking1 that in a state of nature there would be two ways of acquiring riches--one by production1 the other by robbery4 ,under our existing system1 although what is recognized as robbery is forbidden1 there are nevertheless many ways of becoming rich without contributing anything to the wealth of the community4 ,ownership of land or capital1 whether acquired or inherited1 gives a legal right to a permanent income4 ,although most people have to produce in order to live1 a privileged minority are able to live in luxury without producing anything at all4 ,as these are the men who are not only the most fortunate but also the most respected1 there is a general desire to enter their ranks1 and a widespread unwillingness to face the fact that there is no justification whatever for incomes derived in this way4 ,and apart from the passive enjoyment of rent or interest1 the methods of acquiring wealth are very largely predatory4 ,it is not1 as a rule1 by means of useful inventions1 or of any other action which increases the general wealth of the community1 that men amass fortunes2 it is much more often by skill in exploiting or circumventing others4 ,nor is it only among the rich that our present rgime promotes a narrowly acquisitive spirit4 ,the constant risk of destitution compels most men to fill a great part of their time and thought with the economic struggle4 ,there is a theory that this increases the total output of wealth by the community4 ,but for reasons to which ,i shall return later1 ,i believe this theory to be wholly mistaken4 ,economic injustice is perhaps the most obvious evil of our present system4 ,it would be utterly absurd to maintain that the men who inherit great wealth deserve better of the community than those who have to work for their living4 ,i am not prepared to maintain that economic justice requires an exactly equal income for everybody4 ,some kinds of work require a larger income for efficiency than others do2 but there is economic injustice as soon as a man has more than his share1 unless it is because his efficiency in his work requires it1 or as a reward for some definite service4 ,but this point is so obvious that it needs no elaboration4 ,the modern growth of monopolies in the shape of trusts1 cartels1 federations of employers and so on has greatly increased the power of the capitalist to levy toll on the community4 ,this tendency will not cease of itself1 but only through definite action on the part of those who do not profit by the capitalist rgime4 ,unfortunately the distinction between the proletariat and the capitalist is not so sharp as it was in the minds of socialist theorizers4 ,trade-unions have funds in various securities2 friendly societies are large capitalists2 and many individuals eke out their wages by invested savings4 ,all this increases the difficulty of any clear-cut radical change in our economic system4 ,but it does not diminish the desirability of such a change4 ,such a system as that suggested by the ,french syndicalists1 in which each trade would be self-governing and completely independent1 without the control of any central authority1 would not secure economic justice4 ,some trades are in a much stronger bargaining position than others4 ,coal and transport1 for example1 could paralyze the national life1 and could levy blackmail by threatening to do so4 ,on the other hand1 such people as school teachers1 for example1 could rouse very little terror by the threat of a strike and would be in a very weak bargaining position4 ,justice can never be secured by any system of unrestrained force exercised by interested parties in their own interests4 ,for this reason the abolition of the state1 which the syndicalists seem to desire1 would be a measure not compatible with economic justice4 ,the tyranny of the employer1 which at present robs the greater part of most men's lives of all liberty and all initiative1 is unavoidable so long as the employer retains the right of dismissal with consequent loss of pay4 ,this right is supposed to be essential in order that men may have an incentive to work thoroughly4 ,but as men grow more civilized1 incentives based on hope become increasingly preferable to those that are based on fear4 ,it would be far better that men should be rewarded for working well than that they should be punished for working badly4 ,this system is already in operation in the civil service1 where a man is only dismissed for some exceptional degree of vice or virtue1 such as murder or illegal abstention from it4 ,sufficient pay to ensure a livelihood ought to be given to every person who is willing to work1 independently of the question whether the particular work at which he is skilled is wanted at the moment or not4 ,if it is not wanted1 some new trade which is wanted ought to be taught at the public expense4 ,why1 for example1 should a hansom-cab driver be allowed to suffer on account of the introduction of taxies8 ,he has not committed any crime1 and the fact that his work is no longer wanted is due to causes entirely outside his control4 ,instead of being allowed to starve1 he ought to be given instruction in motor driving or in whatever other trade may seem most suitable4 ,at present1 owing to the fact that all industrial changes tend to cause hardships to some section of wage-earners1 there is a tendency to technical conservatism on the part of labor1 a dislike of innovations1 new processes1 and new methods4 ,but such changes1 if they are in the permanent interest of the community1 ought to be carried out without allowing them to bring unmerited loss to those sections of the community whose labor is no longer wanted in the old form4 ,the instinctive conservatism of mankind is sure to make all processes of production change more slowly than they should4 ,it is a pity to add to this by the avoidable conservatism which is forced upon organized labor at present through the unjust workings of a change4 ,it will be said that men will not work well if the fear of dismissal does not spur them on4 ,i think it is only a small percentage of whom this would be true at present4 ,and those of whom it would be true might easily become industrious if they were given more congenial work or a wiser training4 ,the residue who cannot be coaxed into industry by any such methods are probably to be regarded as pathological cases1 requiring medical rather than penal treatment4 ,and against this residue must be set the very much larger number who are now ruined in health or in morale by the terrible uncertainty of their livelihood and the great irregularity of their employment4 ,to very many1 security would bring a quite new possibility of physical and moral health4 ,the most dangerous aspect of the tyranny of the employer is the power which it gives him of interfering with men's activities outside their working hours4 ,a man may be dismissed because the employer dislikes his religion or his politics1 or chooses to think his private life immoral4 ,he may be dismissed because he tries to produce a spirit of independence among his fellow employees4 ,he may fail completely to find employment merely on the ground that he is better educated than most and therefore more dangerous4 ,such cases actually occur at present4 ,this evil would not be remedied1 but rather intensified1 under state socialism1 because1 where the ,state is the only employer1 there is no refuge from its prejudices such as may now accidentally arise through the differing opinions of different men4 ,the ,state would be able to enforce any system of beliefs it happened to like1 and it is almost certain that it would do so4 ,freedom of thought would be penalized1 and all independence of spirit would die out4 ,any rigid system would involve this evil4 ,it is very necessary that there should be diversity and lack of complete systematization4 ,minorities must be able to live and develop their opinions freely4 ,if this is not secured1 the instinct of persecution and conformity will force all men into one mold and make all vital progress impossible4 ,for these reasons1 no one ought to be allowed to suffer destitution so long as he or she is willing to work4 ,and no kind of inquiry ought to be made into opinion or private life4 ,it is only on this basis that it is possible to build up an economic system not founded upon tyranny and terror4 ,,ii ,the power of the economic reformer is limited by the technical productivity of labor4 ,so long as it was necessary to the bare subsistence of the human race that most men should work very long hours for a pittance1 so long no civilization was possible except an aristocratic one2 if there were to be men with sufficient leisure for any mental life1 there had to be others who were sacrificed for the good of the few4 ,but the time when such a system was necessary has passed away with the progress of machinery4 ,it would be possible now1 if we had a wise economic system1 for all who have mental needs to find satisfaction for them4 ,by a few hours a day of manual work1 a man can produce as much as is necessary for his own subsistence2 and if he is willing to forgo luxuries1 that is all that the community has a right to demand of him4 ,it ought to be open to all who so desire to do short hours of work for little pay1 and devote their leisure to whatever pursuit happens to attract them4 ,no doubt the great majority of those who chose this course would spend their time in mere amusement1 as most of the rich do at present4 ,but it could not be said1 in such a society1 that they were parasites upon the labor of others4 ,and there would be a minority who would give their hours of nominal idleness to science or art or literature1 or some other pursuit out of which fundamental progress may come4 ,in all such matters1 organization and system can only do harm4 ,the one thing that can be done is to provide opportunity1 without repining at the waste that results from most men failing to make good use of the opportunity4 ,but except in cases of unusual laziness or eccentric ambition1 most men would elect to do a full day's work for a full day's pay4 ,for these1 who would form the immense majority1 the important thing is that ordinary work should1 as far as possible1 afford interest and independence and scope for initiative4 ,these things are more important than income1 as soon as a certain minimum has been reached4 ,they can be secured by gild socialism1 by industrial self-government subject to state control as regards the relations of a trade to the rest of the community4 ,so far as ,i know1 they cannot be secured in any other way4 ,guild socialism1 as advocated by ,mr4 ,orage and the ,new ,age1 is associated with a polemic against political action1 and in favor of direct economic action by trade-unions4 ,it shares this with syndicalism1 from which most of what is new in it is derived4 ,but ,i see no reason for this attitude2 political and economic action seem to me equally necessary1 each in its own time and place4 ,i think there is danger in the attempt to use the machinery of the present capitalist state for socialistic purposes4 ,but there is need of political action to transform the machinery of the state1 side by side with the transformation which we hope to see in economic institutions4 ,in this country1 neither transformation is likely to be brought about by a sudden revolution2 we must expect each to come step by step1 if at all1 and ,i doubt if either could or should advance very far without the other4 ,the economic system we should ultimately wish to see would be one in which the state would be the sole recipient of economic rent1 while private capitalistic enterprises should be replaced by self-governing combinations of those who actually do the work4 ,it ought to be optional whether a man does a whole day's work for a whole day's pay1 or half a day's work for half a day's pay1 except in cases where such an arrangement would cause practical inconvenience4 ,a man's pay should not cease through the accident of his work being no longer needed1 but should continue so long as he is willing to work1 a new trade being taught him at the public expense1 if necessary4 ,unwillingness to work should be treated medically or educationally1 when it could not be overcome by a change to some more congenial occupation4 ,the workers in a given industry should all be combined in one autonomous unit1 and their work should not be subject to any outside control4 ,the state should fix the price at which they produce1 but should leave the industry self-governing in all other respects4 ,in fixing prices1 the state should1 as far as possible1 allow each industry to profit by any improvements which it might introduce into its own processes1 but should endeavor to prevent undeserved loss or gain through changes in external economic conditions4 ,in this way there would be every incentive to progress1 with the least possible danger of unmerited destitution4 ,and although large economic organizations will continue1 as they are bound to do1 there will be a diffusion of power which will take away the sense of individual impotence from which men and women suffer at present4 ,,iii ,some men1 though they may admit that such a system would be desirable1 will argue that it is impossible to bring it about1 and that therefore we must concentrate on more immediate objects4 ,i think it must be conceded that a political party ought to have proximate aims1 measures which it hopes to carry in the next session or the next parliament1 as well as a more distant goal4 ,marxian socialism1 as it existed in ,germany1 seemed to me to suffer in this way3 although the party was numerically powerful1 it was politically weak1 because it had no minor measures to demand while waiting for the revolution4 ,and when1 at last1 ,german socialism was captured by those who desired a less impracticable policy1 the modification which occurred was of exactly the wrong kind3 acquiescence in bad policies1 such as militarism and imperialism1 rather than advocacy of partial reforms which1 however inadequate1 would still have been steps in the right direction4 ,a similar defect was inherent in the policy of ,french syndicalism as it existed before the war4 ,everything was to wait for the general strike2 after adequate preparation1 one day the whole proletariat would unanimously refuse to work1 the property owners would acknowledge their defeat1 and agree to abandon all their privileges rather than starve4 ,this is a dramatic conception2 but love of drama is a great enemy of true vision4 ,men cannot be trained1 except under very rare circumstances1 to do something suddenly which is very different from what they have been doing before4 ,if the general strike were to succeed1 the victors1 despite their anarchism1 would be compelled at once to form an administration1 to create a new police force to prevent looting and wanton destruction1 to establish a provisional government issuing dictatorial orders to the various sections of revolutionaries4 ,now the syndicalists are opposed in principle to all political action2 they would feel that they were departing from their theory in taking the necessary practical steps1 and they would be without the required training because of their previous abstention from politics4 ,for these reasons it is likely that1 even after a syndicalist revolution1 actual power would fall into the hands of men who were not really syndicalists4 ,another objection to a program which is to be realized suddenly at some remote date by a revolution or a general strike is that enthusiasm flags when there is nothing to do meanwhile1 and no partial success to lessen the weariness of waiting4 ,the only sort of movement which can succeed by such methods is one where the sentiment and the program are both very simple1 as is the case in rebellions of oppressed nations4 ,but the line of demarcation between capitalist and wage-earner is not sharp1 like the line between ,turk and ,armenian1 or between an ,englishman and a native of ,india4 ,those who have advocated the social revolution have been mistaken in their political methods1 chiefly because they have not realized how many people there are in the community whose sympathies and interests lie half on the side of capital1 half on the side of labor4 ,these people make a clear-cut revolutionary policy very difficult4 ,for these reasons1 those who aim at an economic reconstruction which is not likely to be completed to-morrow must1 if they are to have any hope of success1 be able to approach their goal by degrees1 through measures which are of some use in themselves1 even if they should not ultimately lead to the desired end4 ,there must be activities which train men for those that they are ultimately to carry out1 and there must be possible achievements in the near future1 not only a vague hope of a distant paradise4 ,but although ,i believe that all this is true1 ,i believe no less firmly that really vital and radical reform requires some vision beyond the immediate future1 some realization of what human beings might make of human life if they chose4 ,without some such hope1 men will not have the energy and enthusiasm necessary to overcome opposition1 or the steadfastness to persist when their aims are for the moment unpopular4 ,every man who has really sincere desire for any great amelioration in the conditions of life has first to face ridicule1 then persecution1 then cajolery and attempts at subtle corruption4 ,we know from painful experience how few pass unscathed through these three ordeals4 ,the last especially1 when the reformer is shown all the kingdoms of the earth1 is difficult1 indeed almost impossible1 except for those who have made their ultimate goal vivid to themselves by clear and definite thought4 ,economic systems are concerned essentially with the production and distribution of material goods4 ,our present system is wasteful on the production side1 and unjust on the side of distribution4 ,it involves a life of slavery to economic forces for the great majority of the community1 and for the minority a degree of power over the lives of others which no man ought to have4 ,in a good community the production of the necessaries of existence would be a mere preliminary to the important and interesting part of life1 except for those who find a pleasure in some part of the work of producing necessaries4 ,it is not in the least necessary that economic needs should dominate man as they do at present4 ,this is rendered necessary at present1 partly by the inequalities of wealth1 partly by the fact that things of real value1 such as a good education1 are difficult to acquire1 except for the well-to-do4 ,private ownership of land and capital is not defensible on grounds of justice1 or on the ground that it is an economical way of producing what the community needs4 ,but the chief objections to it are that it stunts the lives of men and women1 that it enshrines a ruthless possessiveness in all the respect which is given to success1 that it leads men to fill the greater part of their time and thought with the acquisition of purely material goods1 and that it affords a terrible obstacle to the advancement of civilization and creative energy4 ,the approach to a system free from these evils need not be sudden2 it is perfectly possible to proceed step by step towards economic freedom and industrial self-government4 ,it is not true that there is any outward difficulty in creating the kind of institutions that we have been considering4 ,if organized labor wishes to create them1 nothing could stand in its way4 ,the difficulty involved is merely the difficulty of inspiring men with hope1 of giving them enough imagination to see that the evils from which they suffer are unnecessary1 and enough thought to understand how the evils are to be cured4 ,this is a difficulty which can be overcome by time and energy4 ,but it will not be overcome if the leaders of organized labor have no breadth of outlook1 no vision1 no hopes beyond some slight superficial improvement within the framework of the existing system4 ,revolutionary action may be unnecessary1 but revolutionary thought is indispensable1 and1 as the outcome of thought1 a rational and constructive hope4 ,chapter ,,iii3 ,pitfalls in ,socialism ,i ,in its early days1 socialism was a revolutionary movement of which the object was the liberation of the wage-earning classes and the establishment of freedom and justice4 ,the passage from capitalism to the new rgime was to be sudden and violent3 capitalists were to be expropriated without compensation1 and their power was not to be replaced by any new authority4 ,gradually a change came over the spirit of socialism4 ,in ,france1 socialists became members of the government1 and made and unmade parliamentary majorities4 ,in ,germany1 social democracy grew so strong that it became impossible for it to resist the temptation to barter away some of its intransigeance in return for government recognition of its claims4 ,in ,england1 the ,fabians taught the advantage of reform as against revolution1 and of conciliatory bargaining as against irreconcilable antagonism4 ,the method of gradual reform has many merits as compared to the method of revolution1 and ,i have no wish to preach revolution4 ,but gradual reform has certain dangers1 to wit1 the ownership or control of businesses hitherto in private hands1 and by encouraging legislative interference for the benefit of various sections of the wage-earning classes4 ,i think it is at least doubtful whether such measures do anything at all to contribute toward the ideals which inspired the early socialists and still inspire the great majority of those who advocate some form of socialism4 ,let us take as an illustration such a measure as state purchase of railways4 ,this is a typical object of state socialism1 thoroughly practicable1 already achieved in many countries1 and clearly the sort of step that must be taken in any piecemeal approach to complete collectivism4 ,yet ,i see no reason to believe that any real advance toward democracy1 freedom1 or economic justice is achieved when a state takes over the railways after full compensation to the shareholders4 ,economic justice demands a diminution1 if not a total abolition1 of the proportion of the national income which goes to the recipients of rent and interest4 ,but when the holders of railway shares are given government stock to replace their shares1 they are given the prospect of an income in perpetuity equal to what they might reasonably expect to have derived from their shares4 ,unless there is reason to expect a great increase in the earnings of railways1 the whole operation does nothing to alter the distribution of wealth4 ,this could only be effected if the present owners were expropriated1 or paid less than the market value1 or given a mere life-interest as compensation4 ,when full value is given1 economic justice is not advanced in any degree4 ,there is equally little advance toward freedom4 ,the men employed on the railway have no more voice than they had before in the management of the railway1 or in the wages and conditions of work4 ,instead of having to fight the directors1 with the possibility of an appeal to the government1 they now have to fight the government directly2 and experience does not lead to the view that a government department has any special tenderness toward the claims of labor4 ,if they strike1 they have to contend against the whole organized power of the state1 which they can only do successfully if they happen to have a strong public opinion on their side4 ,in view of the influence which the state can always exercise on the press1 public opinion is likely to be biased against them1 particularly when a nominally progressive government is in power4 ,there will no longer be the possibility of divergences between the policies of different railways4 ,railway men in ,england derived advantages for many years from the comparatively liberal policy of the ,north ,eastern ,railway1 which they were able to use as an argument for a similar policy elsewhere4 ,such possibilities are excluded by the dead uniformity of state administration4 ,and there is no real advance toward democracy4 ,the administration of the railways will be in the hands of officials whose bias and associations separate them from labor1 and who will develop an autocratic temper through the habit of power4 ,the democratic machinery by which these officials are nominally controlled is cumbrous and remote1 and can only be brought into operation on first-class issues which rouse the interest of the whole nation4 ,even then it is very likely that the superior education of the officials and the government1 combined with the advantages of their position1 will enable them to mislead the public as to the issues1 and alienate the general sympathy even from the most excellent cause4 ,i do not deny that these evils exist at present2 ,i say only that they will not be remedied by such measures as the nationalization of railways in the present economic and political environment4 ,a greater upheaval1 and a greater change in men's habits of mind1 is necessary for any really vital progress4 ,,ii ,state socialism1 even in a nation which possesses the form of political democracy1 is not a truly democratic system4 ,the way in which it fails to be democratic may be made plain by an analogy from the political sphere4 ,every democrat recognizes that the ,irish ought to have self-government for ,irish affairs1 and ought not to be told that they have no grievance because they share in the ,parliament of the ,united ,kingdom4 ,it is essential to democracy that any group of citizens whose interests or desires separate them at all widely from the rest of the community should be free to decide their internal affairs for themselves4 ,and what is true of national or local groups is equally true of economic groups1 such as miners or railway men4 ,the national machinery of general elections is by no means sufficient to secure for groups of this kind the freedom which they ought to have4 ,the power of officials1 which is a great and growing danger in the modern state1 arises from the fact that the majority of the voters1 who constitute the only ultimate popular control over officials1 are as a rule not interested in any one particular question1 and are therefore not likely to interfere effectively against an official who is thwarting the wishes of the minority who are interested4 ,the official is nominally subject to indirect popular control1 but not to the control of those who are directly affected by his action4 ,the bulk of the public will either never hear about the matter in dispute1 or1 if they do hear1 will form a hasty opinion based upon inadequate information1 which is far more likely to come from the side of the officials than from the section of the community which is affected by the question at issue4 ,in an important political issue1 some degree of knowledge is likely to be diffused in time2 but in other matters there is little hope that this will happen4 ,it may be said that the power of officials is much less dangerous than the power of capitalists1 because officials have no economic interests that are opposed to those of wage-earners4 ,but this argument involves far too simple a theory of political human nature--a theory which orthodox socialism adopted from the classical political economy1 and has tended to retain in spite of growing evidence of its falsity4 ,economic self-interest1 and even economic class-interest1 is by no means the only important political motive4 ,officials1 whose salary is generally quite unaffected by their decisions on particular questions1 are likely1 if they are of average honesty1 to decide according to their view of the public interest2 but their view will none the less have a bias which will often lead them wrong4 ,it is important to understand this bias before entrusting our destinies too unreservedly to government departments4 ,the first thing to observe is that1 in any very large organization1 and above all in a great state1 officials and legislators are usually very remote from those whom they govern1 and not imaginatively acquainted with the conditions of life to which their decisions will be applied4 ,this makes them ignorant of much that they ought to know1 even when they are industrious and willing to learn whatever can be taught by statistics and blue-books4 ,the one thing they understand intimately is the office routine and the administrative rules4 ,the result is an undue anxiety to secure a uniform system4 ,i have heard of a ,french minister of education taking out his watch1 and remarking1 ,at this moment all the children of such and such an age in ,france are learning so and so4 ,this is the ideal of the administrator1 an ideal utterly fatal to free growth1 initiative1 experiment1 or any far reaching innovation4 ,laziness is not one of the motives recognized in textbooks on political theory1 because all ordinary knowledge of human nature is considered unworthy of the dignity of these works2 yet we all know that laziness is an immensely powerful motive with all but a small minority of mankind4 ,unfortunately1 in this case laziness is reinforced by love of power1 which leads energetic officials to create the systems which lazy officials like to administer4 ,the energetic official inevitably dislikes anything that he does not control4 ,his official sanction must be obtained before anything can be done4 ,whatever he finds in existence he wishes to alter in some way1 so as to have the satisfaction of feeling his power and making it felt4 ,if he is conscientious1 he will think out some perfectly uniform and rigid scheme which he believes to be the best possible1 and he will then impose this scheme ruthlessly1 whatever promising growths he may have to lop down for the sake of symmetry4 ,the result inevitably has something of the deadly dullness of a new rectangular town1 as compared with the beauty and richness of an ancient city which has lived and grown with the separate lives and individualities of many generations4 ,what has grown is always more living than what has been decreed2 but the energetic official will always prefer the tidiness of what he has decreed to the apparent disorder of spontaneous growth4 ,the mere possession of power tends to produce a love of power1 which is a very dangerous motive1 because the only sure proof of power consists in preventing others from doing what they wish to do4 ,the essential theory of democracy is the diffusion of power among the whole people1 so that the evils produced by one man's possession of great power shall be obviated4 ,but the diffusion of power through democracy is only effective when the voters take an interest in the question involved4 ,when the question does not interest them1 they do not attempt to control the administration1 and all actual power passes into the hands of officials4 ,for this reason1 the true ends of democracy are not achieved by state socialism or by any system which places great power in the hands of men subject to no popular control except that which is more or less indirectly exercised through parliament4 ,any fresh survey of men's political actions shows that1 in those who have enough energy to be politically effective1 love of power is a stronger motive than economic self-interest4 ,love of power actuates the great millionaires1 who have far more money than they can spend1 but continue to amass wealth merely in order to control more and more of the world's finance4#b ,love of power is obviously the ruling motive of many politicians4 ,it is also the chief cause of wars1 which are admittedly almost always a bad speculation from the mere point of view of wealth4 ,for this reason1 a new economic system which merely attacks economic motives and does not interfere with the concentration of power is not likely to effect any very great improvement in the world4 ,this is one of the chief reasons for regarding state socialism with suspicion4 #b ,cf4 ,j4 ,a4 ,hobson1 ,the ,evolution of ,modern ,capitalism4 ,,iii ,the problem of the distribution of power is a more difficult one than the problem of the distribution of wealth4 ,the machinery of representative government has concentrated on ultimate power as the only important matter1 and has ignored immediate executive power4 ,almost nothing has been done to democratize administration4 ,government officials1 in virtue of their income1 security1 and social position1 are likely to be on the side of the rich1 who have been their daily associates ever since the time of school and college4 ,and whether or not they are on the side of the rich1 they are not likely1 for the reasons we have been considering1 to be genuinely in favor of progress4 ,what applies to government officials applies also to members of ,parliament1 with the sole difference that they have had to recommend themselves to a constituency4 ,this1 however1 only adds hypocrisy to the other qualities of a ruling caste4 ,whoever has stood in the lobby of the ,house of ,commons watching members emerge with wandering eye and hypothetical smile1 until the constituent is espied1 his arm taken1 my dear fellow whispered in his ear1 and his steps guided toward the inner precincts--whoever1 observing this1 has realized that these are the arts by which men become and remain legislators1 can hardly fail to feel that democracy as it exists is not an absolutely perfect instrument of government4 ,it is a painful fact that the ordinary voter1 at any rate in ,england1 is quite blind to insincerity4 ,the man who does not care about any definite political measures can generally be won by corruption or flattery1 open or concealed2 the man who is set on securing reforms will generally prefer an ambitious windbag to a man who desires the public good without possessing a ready tongue4 ,and the ambitious windbag1 as soon as he has become a power by the enthusiasm he has aroused1 will sell his influence to the governing clique1 sometimes openly1 sometimes by the more subtle method of intentionally failing at a crisis4 ,this is part of the normal working of democracy as embodied in representative institutions4 ,yet a cure must be found if democracy is not to remain a farce4 ,one of the sources of evil in modern large democracies is the fact that most of the electorate have no direct or vital interest in most of the questions that arise4 ,should ,welsh children be allowed the use of the ,welsh language in schools8 ,should gipsies be compelled to abandon their nomadic life at the bidding of the education authorities8 ,should miners have an eight-hour day8 ,should ,christian ,scientists be compelled to call in doctors in case of serious illness8 ,these are matters of passionate interest to certain sections of the community1 but of very little interest to the great majority4 ,if they are decided according to the wishes of the numerical majority1 the intense desires of a minority will be overborne by the very slight and uninformed whims of the indifferent remainder4 ,if the minority are geographically concentrated1 so that they can decide elections in a certain number of constituencies1 like the ,welsh and the miners1 they have a good chance of getting their way1 by the wholly beneficent process which its enemies describe as log-rolling4 ,but if they are scattered and politically feeble1 like the gipsies and the ,christian ,scientists1 they stand a very poor chance against the prejudices of the majority4 ,even when they are geographically concentrated1 like the ,irish1 they may fail to obtain their wishes1 because they arouse some hostility or some instinct of domination in the majority4 ,such a state of affairs is the negation of all democratic principles4 ,the tyranny of the majority is a very real danger4 ,it is a mistake to suppose that the majority is necessarily right4 ,on every new question the majority is always wrong at first4 ,in matters where the state must act as a whole1 such as tariffs1 for example1 decision by majorities is probably the best method that can be devised4 ,but there are a great many questions in which there is no need of a uniform decision4 ,religion is recognized as one of these4 ,education ought to be one1 provided a certain minimum standard is attained4 ,military service clearly ought to be one4 ,wherever divergent action by different groups is possible without anarchy1 it ought to be permitted4 ,in such cases it will be found by those who consider past history that1 whenever any new fundamental issue arises1 the majority are in the wrong1 because they are guided by prejudice and habit4 ,progress comes through the gradual effect of a minority in converting opinion and altering custom4 ,at one time--not so very long ago--it was considered monstrous wickedness to maintain that old women ought not to be burnt as witches4 ,if those who held this opinion had been forcibly suppressed1 we should still be steeped in medieval superstition4 ,for such reasons1 it is of the utmost importance that the majority should refrain from imposing its will as regards matters in which uniformity is not absolutely necessary4 ,,iv ,the cure for the evils and dangers which we have been considering is a very great extension of devolution and federal government4 ,wherever there is a national consciousness1 as in ,wales and ,ireland1 the area in which it exists ought to be allowed to decide all purely local affairs without external interference4 ,but there are many matters which ought to be left to the management1 not of local groups1 but of trade groups1 or of organizations embodying some set of opinions4 ,in the ,east1 men are subject to different laws according to the religion they profess4 ,something of this kind is necessary if any semblance of liberty is to exist where there is great divergence in beliefs4 ,some matters are essentially geographical2 for instance1 gas and water1 roads1 tariffs1 armies and navies4 ,these must be decided by an authority representing an area4 ,how large the area ought to be1 depends upon accidents of topography and sentiment1 and also upon the nature of the matter involved4 ,gas and water require a small area1 roads a somewhat larger one1 while the only satisfactory area for an army or a navy is the whole planet1 since no smaller area will prevent war4 ,but the proper unit in most economic questions1 and also in most questions that are intimately concerned with personal opinions1 is not geographical at all4 ,the internal management of railways ought not to be in the hands of the geographical state1 for reasons which we have already considered4 ,still less ought it to be in the hands of a set of irresponsible capitalists4 ,the only truly democratic system would be one which left the internal management of railways in the hands of the men who work on them4 ,these men should elect the general manager1 and a parliament of directors if necessary4 ,all questions of wages1 conditions of labor1 running of trains1 and acquisition of material1 should be in the hands of a body responsible only to those actually engaged in the work of the railway4 ,the same arguments apply to other large trades3 mining1 iron and steel1 cotton1 and so on4 ,british trade-unionism1 it seems to me1 has erred in conceiving labor and capital as both permanent forces1 which were to be brought to some equality of strength by the organization of labor4 ,this seems to me too modest an ideal4 ,the ideal which ,i should wish to substitute involves the conquest of democracy and self-government in the economic sphere as in the political sphere1 and the total abolition of the power now wielded by the capitalist4 ,the man who works on a railway ought to have a voice in the government of the railway1 just as much as the man who works in a state has a right to a voice in the management of his state4 ,the concentration of business initiative in the hands of the employers is a great evil1 and robs the employees of their legitimate share of interest in the larger problems of their trade4 ,french syndicalists were the first to advocate the system of trade autonomy as a better solution than state socialism4 ,but in their view the trades were to be independent1 almost like sovereign states at present4 ,such a system would not promote peace1 any more than it does at present in international relations4 ,in the affairs of any body of men1 we may broadly distinguish what may be called questions of home politics from questions of foreign politics4 ,every group sufficiently well-marked to constitute a political entity ought to be autonomous in regard to internal matters1 but not in regard to those that directly affect the outside world4 ,if two groups are both entirely free as regards their relations to each other1 there is no way of averting the danger of an open or covert appeal to force4 ,the relations of a group of men to the outside world ought1 whenever possible1 to be controlled by a neutral authority4 ,it is here that the state is necessary for adjusting the relations between different trades4 ,the men who make some commodity should be entirely free as regards hours of labor1 distribution of the total earnings of the trade1 and all questions of business management4 ,but they should not be free as regards the price of what they produce1 since price is a matter concerning their relations to the rest of the community4 ,if there were nominal freedom in regard to price1 there would be a danger of a constant tug-of-war1 in which those trades which were most immediately necessary to the existence of the community could always obtain an unfair advantage4 ,force is no more admirable in the economic sphere than in dealings between states4 ,in order to secure the maximum of freedom with the minimum of force1 the universal principle is3 ,autonomy within each politically important group1 and a neutral authority for deciding questions involving relations between groups4 ,the neutral authority should1 of course1 rest on a democratic basis1 but should1 if possible1 represent a constituency wider than that of the groups concerned4 ,in international affairs the only adequate authority would be one representing all civilized nations4 ,in order to prevent undue extension of the power of such authorities1 it is desirable and necessary that the various autonomous groups should be very jealous of their liberties1 and very ready to resist by political means any encroachments upon their independence4 ,state socialism does not tolerate such groups1 each with their own officials responsible to the group4 ,consequently it abandons the internal affairs of a group to the control of men not responsible to that group or specially aware of its needs4 ,this opens the door to tyranny and to the destruction of initiative4 ,these dangers are avoided by a system which allows any group of men to combine for any given purpose1 provided it is not predatory1 and to claim from the central authority such self-government as is necessary to the carrying out of the purpose4 ,churches of various denominations afford an instance4 ,their autonomy was won by centuries of warfare and persecution4 ,it is to be hoped that a less terrible struggle will be required to achieve the same result in the economic sphere4 ,but whatever the obstacles1 ,i believe the importance of liberty is as great in the one case as it has been admitted to be in the other4 ,chapter ,,iv3 ,individual ,liberty and ,public ,control ,i ,society cannot exist without law and order1 and cannot advance except through the initiative of vigorous innovators4 ,yet law and order are always hostile to innovations1 and innovators are almost always1 to some extent1 anarchists4 ,those whose minds are dominated by fear of a relapse towards barbarism will emphasize the importance of law and order1 while those who are inspired by the hope of an advance towards civilization will usually be more conscious of the need of individual initiative4 ,both temperaments are necessary1 and wisdom lies in allowing each to operate freely where it is beneficent4 ,but those who are on the side of law and order1 since they are reinforced by custom and the instinct for upholding the status quo1 have no need of a reasoned defense4 ,it is the innovators who have difficulty in being allowed to exist and work4 ,each generation believes that this difficulty is a thing of the past1 but each generation is only tolerant of past innovations4 ,those of its own day are met with the same persecution as though the principle of toleration had never been heard of4 ,in early society1 says ,westermarck1 customs are not only moral rules1 but the only moral rules ever thought of4 ,the savage strictly complies with the ,hegelian command that no man must have a private conscience4 ,the following statement1 which refers to the ,tinnevelly ,shanars1 may be quoted as a typical example3 ',solitary individuals amongst them rarely adopt any new opinions1 or any new course of procedure4 ,they follow the multitude to do evil1 and they follow the multitude to do good4 ,they think in herds4'#c #c ,the ,origin and ,development of the ,moral ,ideas1 #b;d edition1 ,vol4 ,i1 p4 #aai4 ,those among ourselves who have never thought a thought or done a deed in the slightest degree different from the thoughts and deeds of our neighbors will congratulate themselves on the difference between us and the savage4 ,but those who have ever attempted any real innovation cannot help feeling that the people they know are not so very unlike the ,tinnevelly ,shanars4 ,under the influence of socialism1 even progressive opinion1 in recent years1 has been hostile to individual liberty4 ,liberty is associated1 in the minds of reformers1 with laissez-faire1 the ,manchester ,school1 and the exploitation of women and children which resulted from what was euphemistically called free competition4 ,all these things were evil1 and required state interference2 in fact1 there is need of an immense increase of state action in regard to cognate evils which still exist4 ,in everything that concerns the economic life of the community1 as regards both distribution and conditions of production1 what is required is more public control1 not less--how much more1 ,i do not profess to know4 ,another direction in which there is urgent need of the substitution of law and order for anarchy is international relations4 ,at present1 each sovereign state has complete individual freedom1 subject only to the sanction of war4 ,this individual freedom will have to be curtailed in regard to external relations if wars are ever to cease4 ,but when we pass outside the sphere of material possessions1 we find that the arguments in favor of public control almost entirely disappear4 ,religion1 to begin with1 is recognized as a matter in which the state ought not to interfere4 ,whether a man is ,christian1 ,mahometan1 or ,jew is a question of no public concern1 so long as he obeys the laws2 and the laws ought to be such as men of all religions can obey4 ,yet even here there are limits4 ,no civilized state would tolerate a religion demanding human sacrifice4 ,the ,english in ,india put an end to suttee1 in spite of a fixed principle of non-interference with native religious customs4 ,perhaps they were wrong to prevent suttee1 yet almost every ,european would have done the same4 ,we cannot effectively doubt that such practices ought to be stopped1 however we may theorize in favor of religious liberty4 ,in such cases1 the interference with liberty is imposed from without by a higher civilization4 ,but the more common case1 and the more interesting1 is when an independent state interferes on behalf of custom against individuals who are feeling their way toward more civilized beliefs and institutions4 ,in ,new ,south ,wales1 says ,westermarck1 the first-born of every lubra used to be eaten by the tribe 'as part of a religious ceremony4' ,in the realm of ,khai-muh1 in ,china1 according to a native account1 it was customary to kill and devour the eldest son alive4 ,among certain tribes in ,british ,columbia the first child is often sacrificed to the sun4 ,the ,indians of ,florida1 according to ,le ,moyne de ,morgues1 sacrificed the first-born son to the chief4444'#d #d ,op cit41 p4 #dei4 ,there are pages and pages of such instances4 ,there is nothing analogous to these practices among ourselves4 ,when the first-born in ,florida was told that his king and country needed him1 this was a mere mistake1 and with us mistakes of this kind do not occur4 ,but it is interesting to inquire how these superstitions died out1 in such cases1 for example1 as that of ,khai-muh1 where foreign compulsion is improbable4 ,we may surmise that some parents1 under the selfish influence of parental affection1 were led to doubt whether the sun would really be angry if the eldest child were allowed to live4 ,such rationalism would be regarded as very dangerous1 since it was calculated to damage the harvest4 ,for generations the opinion would be cherished in secret by a handful of cranks1 who would not be able to act upon it4 ,at last1 by concealment or flight1 a few parents would save their children from the sacrifice4 ,such parents would be regarded as lacking all public spirit1 and as willing to endanger the community for their private pleasure4 ,but gradually it would appear that the state remained intact1 and the crops were no worse than in former years4 ,then1 by a fiction1 a child would be deemed to have been sacrificed if it was solemnly dedicated to agriculture or some other work of national importance chosen by the chief4 ,it would be many generations before the child would be allowed to choose its own occupation after it had grown old enough to know its own tastes and capacities4 ,and during all those generations1 children would be reminded that only an act of grace had allowed them to live at all1 and would exist under the shadow of a purely imaginary duty to the state4 ,the position of those parents who first disbelieved in the utility of infant sacrifice illustrates all the difficulties which arise in connection with the adjustment of individual freedom to public control4 ,the authorities1 believing the sacrifice necessary for the good of the community1 were bound to insist upon it2 the parents1 believing it useless1 were equally bound to do everything in their power toward saving the child4 ,how ought both parties to act in such a case8 ,the duty of the skeptical parent is plain3 to save the child by any possible means1 to preach the uselessness of the sacrifice in season and out of season1 and to endure patiently whatever penalty the law may indict for evasion4 ,but the duty of the authorities is far less clear4 ,so long as they remain firmly persuaded that the universal sacrifice of the first-born is indispensable1 they are bound to persecute those who seek to undermine this belief4 ,but they will1 if they are conscientious1 very carefully examine the arguments of opponents1 and be willing in advance to admit that these arguments may be sound4 ,they will carefully search their own hearts to see whether hatred of children or pleasure in cruelty has anything to do with their belief4 ,they will remember that in the past history of ,khai-muh there are innumerable instances of beliefs1 now known to be false1 on account of which those who disagreed with the prevalent view were put to death4 ,finally they will reflect that1 though errors which are traditional are often wide-spread1 new beliefs seldom win acceptance unless they are nearer to the truth than what they replace2 and they will conclude that a new belief is probably either an advance1 or so unlikely to become common as to be innocuous4 ,all these considerations will make them hesitate before they resort to punishment4 ,,ii ,the study of past times and uncivilized races makes it clear beyond question that the customary beliefs of tribes or nations are almost invariably false4 ,it is difficult to divest ourselves completely of the customary beliefs of our own age and nation1 but it is not very difficult to achieve a certain degree of doubt in regard to them4 ,the ,inquisitor who burnt men at the stake was acting with true humanity if all his beliefs were correct2 but if they were in error at any point1 he was inflicting a wholly unnecessary cruelty4 ,a good working maxim in such matters is this3 ,do not trust customary beliefs so far as to perform actions which must be disastrous unless the beliefs in question are wholly true4 ,the world would be utterly bad1 in the opinion of the average ,englishman1 unless he could say ,britannia rules the waves2 in the opinion of the average ,german1 unless he could say ,deutschland ber alles4 ,for the sake of these beliefs1 they are willing to destroy ,european civilization4 ,if the beliefs should happen to be false1 their action is regrettable4 ,one fact which emerges from these considerations is that no obstacle should be placed in the way of thought and its expression1 nor yet in the way of statements of fact4 ,this was formerly common ground among liberal thinkers1 though it was never quite realized in the practice of civilized countries4 ,but it has recently become1 throughout ,europe1 a dangerous paradox1 on account of which men suffer imprisonment or starvation4 ,for this reason it has again become worth stating4 ,the grounds for it are so evident that ,i should be ashamed to repeat them if they were not universally ignored4 ,but in the actual world it is very necessary to repeat them4 ,to attain complete truth is not given to mortals1 but to advance toward it by successive steps is not impossible4 ,on any matter of general interest1 there is usually1 in any given community at any given time1 a received opinion1 which is accepted as a matter of course by all who give no special thought to the matter4 ,any questioning of the received opinion rouses hostility1 for a number of reasons4 ,the most important of these is the instinct of conventionality1 which exists in all gregarious animals and often leads them to put to death any markedly peculiar member of the herd4 ,the next most important is the feeling of insecurity aroused by doubt as to the beliefs by which we are in the habit of regulating our lives4 ,whoever has tried to explain the philosophy of ,berkeley to a plain man will have seen in its unadulterated form the anger aroused by this feeling4 ,what the plain man derives from ,berkeley's philosophy at a first hearing is an uncomfortable suspicion that nothing is solid1 so that it is rash to sit on a chair or to expect the floor to sustain us4 ,because this suspicion is uncomfortable1 it is irritating1 except to those who regard the whole argument as merely nonsense4 ,and in a more or less analogous way any questioning of what has been taken for granted destroys the feeling of standing on solid ground1 and produces a condition of bewildered fear4 ,a third reason which makes men dislike novel opinions is that vested interests are bound up with old beliefs4 ,the long fight of the church against science1 from ,giordano ,bruno to ,darwin1 is attributable to this motive among others4 ,the horror of socialism which existed in the remote past was entirely attributable to this cause4 ,but it would be a mistake to assume1 as is done by those who seek economic motives everywhere1 that vested interests are the principal source of anger against novelties in thought4 ,if this were the case1 intellectual progress would be much more rapid than it is4 ,the instinct of conventionality1 horror of uncertainty1 and vested interests1 all militate against the acceptance of a new idea4 ,and it is even harder to think of a new idea than to get it accepted2 most people might spend a lifetime in reflection without ever making a genuinely original discovery4 ,in view of all these obstacles1 it is not likely that any society at any time will suffer from a plethora of heretical opinions4 ,least of all is this likely in a modern civilized society1 where the conditions of life are in constant rapid change1 and demand1 for successful adaptation1 an equally rapid change in intellectual outlook4 ,there should be an attempt1 therefore1 to encourage1 rather than discourage1 the expression of new beliefs and the dissemination of knowledge tending to support them4 ,but the very opposite is1 in fact1 the case4 ,from childhood upward1 everything is done to make the minds of men and women conventional and sterile4 ,and if1 by misadventure1 some spark of imagination remains1 its unfortunate possessor is considered unsound and dangerous1 worthy only of contempt in time of peace and of prison or a traitor's death in time of war4 ,yet such men are known to have been in the past the chief benefactors of mankind1 and are the very men who receive most honor as soon as they are safely dead4 ,the whole realm of thought and opinion is utterly unsuited to public control2 it ought to be as free1 and as spontaneous as is possible to those who know what others have believed4 ,the state is justified in insisting that children shall be educated1 but it is not justified in forcing their education to proceed on a uniform plan and to be directed to the production of a dead level of glib uniformity4 ,education1 and the life of the mind generally1 is a matter in which individual initiative is the chief thing needed2 the function of the state should begin and end with insistence on some kind of education1 and1 if possible1 a kind which promotes mental individualism1 not a kind which happens to conform to the prejudices of government officials4 ,,iii ,questions of practical morals raise more difficult problems than questions of mere opinion4 ,the thugs honestly believe it their duty to commit murders1 but the government does not acquiesce4 ,the conscientious objectors honestly hold the opposite opinion1 and again the government does not acquiesce4 ,killing is a state prerogative2 it is equally criminal to do it unbidden and not to do it when bidden4 ,the same applies to theft1 unless it is on a large scale or by one who is already rich4 ,thugs and thieves are men who use force in their dealings with their neighbors1 and we may lay it down broadly that the private use of force should be prohibited except in rare cases1 however conscientious may be its motive4 ,but this principle will not justify compelling men to use force at the bidding of the state1 when they do not believe it justified by the occasion4 ,the punishment of conscientious objectors seems clearly a violation of individual liberty within its legitimate sphere4 ,it is generally assumed without question that the state has a right to punish certain kinds of sexual irregularity4 ,no one doubts that the ,mormons sincerely believed polygamy to be a desirable practice1 yet the ,united ,states required them to abandon its legal recognition1 and probably any other ,christian country would have done likewise4 ,nevertheless1 ,i do not think this prohibition was wise4 ,polygamy is legally permitted in many parts of the world1 but is not much practised except by chiefs and potentates4 ,if1 as ,europeans generally believe1 it is an undesirable custom1 it is probable that the ,mormons would have soon abandoned it1 except perhaps for a few men of exceptional position4 ,if1 on the other hand1 it had proved a successful experiment1 the world would have acquired a piece of knowledge which it is now unable to possess4 ,i think in all such cases the law should only intervene when there is some injury inflicted without the consent of the injured person4 ,it is obvious that men and women would not tolerate having their wives or husbands selected by the state1 whatever eugenists might have to say in favor of such a plan4 ,in this it seems clear that ordinary public opinion is in the right1 not because people choose wisely1 but because any choice of their own is better than a forced marriage4 ,what applies to marriage ought also to apply to the choice of a trade or profession2 although some men have no marked preferences1 most men greatly prefer some occupations to others1 and are far more likely to be useful citizens if they follow their preferences than if they are thwarted by a public authority4 ,the case of the man who has an intense conviction that he ought to do a certain kind of work is peculiar1 and perhaps not very common2 but it is important because it includes some very important individuals4 ,joan of ,arc and ,florence ,nightingale defied convention in obedience to a feeling of this sort2 reformers and agitators in unpopular causes1 such as ,mazzini1 have belonged to this class2 so have many men of science4 ,in cases of this kind the individual conviction deserves the greatest respect1 even if there seems no obvious justification for it4 ,obedience to the impulse is very unlikely to do much harm1 and may well do great good4 ,the practical difficulty is to distinguish such impulses from desires which produce similar manifestations4 ,many young people wish to be authors without having an impulse to write any particular book1 or wish to be painters without having an impulse to create any particular picture4 ,but a little experience will usually show the difference between a genuine and a spurious impulse2 and there is less harm in indulging the spurious impulse for a time than in thwarting the impulse which is genuine4 ,nevertheless1 the plain man almost always has a tendency to thwart the genuine impulse1 because it seems anarchic and unreasonable1 and is seldom able to give a good account of itself in advance4 ,what is markedly true of some notable personalities is true1 in a lesser degree1 of almost every individual who has much vigor or force of life2 there is an impulse towards activity of some kind1 as a rule not very definite in youth1 but growing gradually more sharply outlined under the influence of education and opportunity4 ,the direct impulse toward a kind of activity for its own sake must be distinguished from the desire for the expected effects of the activity4 ,a young man may desire the rewards of great achievement without having any spontaneous impulse toward the activities which lead to achievement4 ,but those who actually achieve much1 although they may desire the rewards1 have also something in their nature which inclines them to choose a certain kind of work as the road which they must travel if their ambition is to be satisfied4 ,this artist's impulse1 as it may be called1 is a thing of infinite value to the individual1 and often to the world2 to respect it in oneself and in others makes up nine tenths of the good life4 ,in most human beings it is rather frail1 rather easily destroyed or disturbed2 parents and teachers are too often hostile to it1 and our economic system crushes out its last remnants in young men and young women4 ,the result is that human beings cease to be individual1 or to retain the native pride that is their birthright2 they become machine-made1 tame1 convenient for the bureaucrat and the drill-sergeant1 capable of being tabulated in statistics without anything being omitted4 ,this is the fundamental evil resulting from lack of liberty2 and it is an evil which is being continually intensified as population grows more dense and the machinery of organization grows more efficient4 ,the things that men desire are many and various3 admiration1 affection1 power1 security1 ease1 outlets for energy1 are among the commonest of motives4 ,but such abstractions do not touch what makes the difference between one man and another4 ,whenever ,i go to the zological gardens1 ,i am struck by the fact that all the movements of a stork have some common quality1 differing from the movements of a parrot or an ostrich4 ,it is impossible to put in words what the common quality is1 and yet we feel that each thing an animal does is the sort of thing we might expect that animal to do4 ,this indefinable quality constitutes the individuality of the animal1 and gives rise to the pleasure we feel in watching the animal's actions4 ,in a human being1 provided he has not been crushed by an economic or governmental machine1 there is the same kind of individuality1 a something distinctive without which no man or woman can achieve much of importance1 or retain the full dignity which is native to human beings4 ,it is this distinctive individuality that is loved by the artist1 whether painter or writer4 ,the artist himself1 and the man who is creative in no matter what direction1 has more of it than the average man4 ,any society which crushes this quality1 whether intentionally or by accident1 must soon become utterly lifeless and traditional1 without hope of progress and without any purpose in its being4 ,to preserve and strengthen the impulse that makes individuality should be the foremost object of all political institutions4 ,,iv ,we now arrive at certain general principles in regard to individual liberty and public control4 ,the greater part of human impulses may be divided into two classes1 those which are possessive and those which are constructive or creative4 ,social institutions are the garments or embodiments of impulses1 and may be classified roughly according to the impulses which they embody4 ,property is the direct expression of possessiveness2 science and art are among the most direct expressions of creativeness4 ,possessiveness is either defensive or aggressive2 it seeks either to retain against a robber1 or to acquire from a present holder4 ,in either case an attitude of hostility toward others is of its essence4 ,it would be a mistake to suppose that defensive possessiveness is always justifiable1 while the aggressive kind is always blameworthy2 where there is great injustice in the status quo1 the exact opposite may be the case1 and ordinarily neither is justifiable4 ,state interference with the actions of individuals is necessitated by possessiveness4 ,some goods can be acquired or retained by force1 while others cannot4 ,a wife can be acquired by force1 as the ,romans acquired the ,sabine women2 but a wife's affection cannot be acquired in this way4 ,there is no record that the ,romans desired the affection of the ,sabine women2 and those in whom possessive impulses are strong tend to care chiefly for the goods that force can secure4 ,all material goods belong to this class4 ,liberty in regard to such goods1 if it were unrestricted1 would make the strong rich and the weak poor4 ,in a capitalistic society1 owing to the partial restraints imposed by law1 it makes cunning men rich and honest men poor1 because the force of the state is put at men's disposal1 not according to any just or rational principle1 but according to a set of traditional maxims of which the explanation is purely historical4 ,in all that concerns possession and the use of force1 unrestrained liberty involves anarchy and injustice4 ,freedom to kill1 freedom to rob1 freedom to defraud1 no longer belong to individuals1 though they still belong to great states1 and are exercised by them in the name of patriotism4 ,neither individuals nor states ought to be free to exert force on their own initiative1 except in such sudden emergencies as will subsequently be admitted in justification by a court of law4 ,the reason for this is that the exertion of force by one individual against another is always an evil on both sides1 and can only be tolerated when it is compensated by some overwhelming resultant good4 ,in order to minimize the amount of force actually exerted in the world1 it is necessary that there should be a public authority1 a repository of practically irresistible force1 whose function should be primarily to repress the private use of force4 ,a use of force is private when it is exerted by one of the interested parties1 or by his friends or accomplices1 not by a public neutral authority according to some rule which is intended to be in the public interest4 ,the rgime of private property under which we live does much too little to restrain the private use of force4 ,when a man owns a piece of land1 for example1 he may use force against trespassers1 though they must not use force against him4 ,it is clear that some restriction of the liberty of trespass is necessary for the cultivation of the land4 ,but if such powers are to be given to an individual1 the state ought to satisfy itself that he occupies no more land than he is warranted in occupying in the public interest1 and that the share of the produce of the land that comes to him is no more than a just reward for his labors4 ,probably the only way in which such ends can be achieved is by state ownership of land4 ,the possessors of land and capital are able at present1 by economic pressure1 to use force against those who have no possessions4 ,this force is sanctioned by law1 while force exercised by the poor against the rich is illegal4 ,such a state of things is unjust1 and does not diminish the use of private force as much as it might be diminished4 ,the whole realm of the possessive impulses1 and of the use of force to which they give rise1 stands in need of control by a public neutral authority1 in the interests of liberty no less than of justice4 ,within a nation1 this public authority will naturally be the state2 in relations between nations1 if the present anarchy is to cease1 it will have to be some international parliament4 ,but the motive underlying the public control of men's possessive impulses should always be the increase of liberty1 both by the prevention of private tyranny and by the liberation of creative impulses4 ,if public control is not to do more harm than good1 it must be so exercised as to leave the utmost freedom of private initiative in all those ways that do not involve the private use of force4 ,in this respect all governments have always failed egregiously1 and there is no evidence that they are improving4 ,the creative impulses1 unlike those that are possessive1 are directed to ends in which one man's gain is not another man's loss4 ,the man who makes a scientific discovery or writes a poem is enriching others at the same time as himself4 ,any increase in knowledge or good-will is a gain to all who are affected by it1 not only to the actual possessor4 ,those who feel the joy of life are a happiness to others as well as to themselves4 ,force cannot create such things1 though it can destroy them2 no principle of distributive justice applies to them1 since the gain of each is the gain of all4 ,for these reasons1 the creative part of a man's activity ought to be as free as possible from all public control1 in order that it may remain spontaneous and full of vigor4 ,the only function of the state in regard to this part of the individual life should be to do everything possible toward providing outlets and opportunities4 ,in every life a part is governed by the community1 and a part by private initiative4 ,the part governed by private initiative is greatest in the most important individuals1 such as men of genius and creative thinkers4 ,this part ought only to be restricted when it is predatory2 otherwise1 everything ought to be done to make it as great and as vigorous as possible4 ,the object of education ought not to be to make all men think alike1 but to make each think in the way which is the fullest expression of his own personality4 ,in the choice of a means of livelihood all young men and young women ought1 as far as possible1 to be able to choose what is attractive to them2 if no money-making occupation is attractive1 they ought to be free to do little work for little pay1 and spend their leisure as they choose4 ,any kind of censure on freedom of thought or on the dissemination of knowledge is1 of course1 to be condemned utterly4 ,huge organizations1 both political and economic1 are one of the distinguishing characteristics of the modern world4 ,these organizations have immense power1 and often use their power to discourage originality in thought and action4 ,they ought1 on the contrary1 to give the freest scope that is possible without producing anarchy or violent conflict4 ,they ought not to take cognizance of any part of a man's life except what is concerned with the legitimate objects of public control1 namely1 possessions and the use of force4 ,and they ought1 by devolution1 to leave as large a share of control as possible in the hands of individuals and small groups4 ,if this is not done1 the men at the head of these vast organizations will infallibly become tyrannous through the habit of excessive power1 and will in time interfere in ways that crush out individual initiative4 ,the problem which faces the modern world is the combination of individual initiative with the increase in the scope and size of organizations4 ,unless it is solved1 individuals will grow less and less full of life and vigor1 and more and more passively submissive to conditions imposed upon them4 ,a society composed of such individuals cannot be progressive or add much to the world's stock of mental and spiritual possessions4 ,only personal liberty and the encouragement of initiative can secure these things4 ,those who resist authority when it encroaches upon the legitimate sphere of the individual are performing a service to society1 however little society may value it4 ,in regard to the past1 this is universally acknowledged2 but it is no less true in regard to the present and the future4 ,chapter ,v3 ,national ,independence and ,internationalism ,in the relations between states1 as in the relations of groups within a single state1 what is to be desired is independence for each as regards internal affairs1 and law rather than private force as regards external affairs4 ,but as regards groups within a state1 it is internal independence that must be emphasized1 since that is what is lacking2 subjection to law has been secured1 on the whole1 since the end of the ,middle ,ages4 ,in the relations between states1 on the contrary1 it is law and a central government that are lacking1 since independence exists for external as for internal affairs4 ,the stage we have reached in the affairs of ,europe corresponds to the stage reached in our internal affairs during the ,wars of the ,roses1 when turbulent barons frustrated the attempt to make them keep the king's peace4 ,thus1 although the goal is the same in the two cases1 the steps to be taken in order to achieve it are quite different4 ,there can be no good international system until the boundaries of states coincide as nearly as possible with the boundaries of nations4 ,but it is not easy to say what we mean by a nation4 ,are the ,irish a nation8 ,home ,rulers say yes1 ,unionists say no4 ,are the ,ulstermen a nation8 ,unionists say yes1 ,home ,rulers say no4 ,in all such cases it is a party question whether we are to call a group a nation or not4 ,a ,german will tell you that the ,russian ,poles are a nation1 but as for the ,prussian ,poles1 they1 of course1 are part of ,prussia4 ,professors can always be hired to prove1 by arguments of race or language or history1 that a group about which there is a dispute is1 or is not1 a nation1 as may be desired by those whom the professors serve4 ,if we are to avoid all these controversies1 we must first of all endeavor to find some definition of a nation4 ,a nation is not to be defined by affinities of language or a common historical origin1 though these things often help to produce a nation4 ,switzerland is a nation1 despite diversities of race1 religion1 and language4 ,england and ,scotland now form one nation1 though they did not do so at the time of the ,civil ,war4 ,this is shown by ,cromwell's saying1 in the height of the conflict1 that he would rather be subject to the domain of the royalists than to that of the ,scotch4 ,great ,britain was one state before it was one nation2 on the other hand1 ,germany was one nation before it was one state4 ,what constitutes a nation is a sentiment and an instinct1 a sentiment of similarity and an instinct of belonging to the same group or herd4 ,the instinct is an extension of the instinct which constitutes a flock of sheep1 or any other group of gregarious animals4 ,the sentiment which goes with this is like a milder and more extended form of family feeling4 ,when we return to ,england after being on the ,continent1 we feel something friendly in the familiar ways1 and it is easy to believe that ,englishmen on the whole are virtuous1 while many foreigners are full of designing wickedness4 ,such feelings make it easy to organize a nation into a state4 ,it is not difficult1 as a rule1 to acquiesce in the orders of a national government4 ,we feel that it is our government1 and that its decrees are more or less the same as those which we should have given if we ourselves had been the governors4 ,there is an instinctive and usually unconscious sense of a common purpose animating the members of a nation4 ,this becomes especially vivid when there is war or a danger of war4 ,any one who1 at such a time1 stands out against the orders of his government feels an inner conflict quite different from any that he would feel in standing out against the orders of a foreign government in whose power he might happen to find himself4 ,if he stands out1 he does so with some more or less conscious hope that his government may in time come to think as he does2 whereas1 in standing out against a foreign government1 no such hope is necessary4 ,this group instinct1 however it may have arisen1 is what constitutes a nation1 and what makes it important that the boundaries of nations should also be the boundaries of states4 ,national sentiment is a fact1 and should be taken account of by institutions4 ,when it is ignored1 it is intensified and becomes a source of strife4 ,it can only be rendered harmless by being given free play1 so long as it is not predatory4 ,but it is not1 in itself1 a good or admirable feeling4 ,there is nothing rational and nothing desirable in a limitation of sympathy which confines it to a fragment of the human race4 ,diversities of manners and customs and traditions are1 on the whole1 a good thing1 since they enable different nations to produce different types of excellence4 ,but in national feeling there is always latent or explicit an element of hostility to foreigners4 ,national feeling1 as we know it1 could not exist in a nation which was wholly free from external pressure of a hostile kind4 ,and group feeling produces a limited and often harmful kind of morality4 ,men come to identify the good with what serves the interests of their own group1 and the bad with what works against those interests1 even if it should happen to be in the interests of mankind as a whole4 ,this group morality is very much in evidence during war1 and is taken for granted in men's ordinary thought4 ,although almost all ,englishmen consider the defeat of ,germany desirable for the good of the world1 yet nevertheless most of them honor a ,german for fighting for his country1 because it has not occurred to them that his actions ought to be guided by a morality higher than that of the group4 ,a man does right1 as a rule1 to have his thoughts more occupied with the interests of his own nation than with those of others1 because his actions are more likely to affect his own nation4 ,but in time of war1 and in all matters which are of equal concern to other nations and to his own1 a man ought to take account of the universal welfare1 and not allow his survey to be limited by the interest1 or supposed interest1 of his own group or nation4 ,so long as national feeling exists1 it is very important that each nation should be self-governing as regards its internal affairs4 ,government can only be carried on by force and tyranny if its subjects view it with hostile eyes1 and they will so view it if they feel that it belongs to an alien nation4 ,this principle meets with difficulties in cases where men of different nations live side by side in the same area1 as happens in some parts of the ,balkans4 ,there are also difficulties in regard to places which1 for some geographical reason1 are of great international importance1 such as the ,suez ,canal and the ,panama ,canal4 ,in such cases the purely local desires of the inhabitants may have to give way before larger interests4 ,but in general1 at any rate as applied to civilized communities1 the principle that the boundaries of nations ought to coincide with the boundaries of states has very few exceptions4 ,this principle1 however1 does not decide how the relations between states are to be regulated1 or how a conflict of interests between rival states is to be decided4 ,at present1 every great state claims absolute sovereignty1 not only in regard to its internal affairs but also in regard to its external actions4 ,this claim to absolute sovereignty leads it into conflict with similar claims on the part of other great states4 ,such conflicts at present can only be decided by war or diplomacy1 and diplomacy is in essence nothing but the threat of war4 ,there is no more justification for the claim to absolute sovereignty on the part of a state than there would be for a similar claim on the part of an individual4 ,the claim to absolute sovereignty is1 in effect1 a claim that all external affairs are to be regulated purely by force1 and that when two nations or groups of nations are interested in a question1 the decision shall depend solely upon which of them is1 or is believed to be1 the stronger4 ,this is nothing but primitive anarchy1 the war of all against all1 which ,hobbes asserted to be the original state of mankind4 ,there cannot be secure peace in the world1 or any decision of international questions according to international law1 until states are willing to part with their absolute sovereignty as regards their external relations1 and to leave the decision in such matters to some international instrument of government4#e ,an international government will have to be legislative as well as judicial4 ,it is not enough that there should be a ,hague tribunal1 deciding matters according to some already existing system of international law2 it is necessary also that there should be a body capable of enacting international law1 and this body will have to have the power of transferring territory from one state to another1 when it is persuaded that adequate grounds exist for such a transference4 ,friends of peace will make a mistake if they unduly glorify the status quo4 ,some nations grow1 while others dwindle2 the population of an area may change its character by emigration and immigration4 ,there is no good reason why states should resent changes in their boundaries under such conditions1 and if no international authority has power to make changes of this kind1 the temptations to war will sometimes become irresistible4 #e ,for detailed scheme of international government see ,international ,government1 by ,l4 ,woolf4 ,allen ,unwin4 ,the international authority ought to possess an army and navy1 and these ought to be the only army and navy in existence4 ,the only legitimate use of force is to diminish the total amount of force exercised in the world4 ,so long as men are free to indulge their predatory instincts1 some men or groups of men will take advantage of this freedom for oppression and robbery4 ,just as the police are necessary to prevent the use of force by private citizens1 so an international police will be necessary to prevent the lawless use of force by separate states4 ,but ,i think it is reasonable to hope that if ever an international government1 possessed of the only army and navy in the world1 came into existence1 the need of force to enact obedience to its decisions would be very temporary4 ,in a short time the benefits resulting from the substitution of law for anarchy would become so obvious that the international government would acquire an unquestioned authority1 and no state would dream of rebelling against its decisions4 ,as soon as this stage had been reached1 the international army and navy would become unnecessary4 ,we have still a very long road to travel before we arrive at the establishment of an international authority1 but it is not very difficult to foresee the steps by which this result will be gradually reached4 ,there is likely to be a continual increase in the practice of submitting disputes to arbitration1 and in the realization that the supposed conflicts of interest between different states are mainly illusory4 ,even where there is a real conflict of interest1 it must in time become obvious that neither of the states concerned would suffer as much by giving way as by fighting4 ,with the progress of inventions1 war1 when it does occur1 is bound to become increasingly destructive4 ,the civilized races of the world are faced with the alternative of coperation or mutual destruction4 ,the present war is making this alternative daily more evident4 ,and it is difficult to believe that1 when the enmities which it has generated have had time to cool1 civilized men will deliberately choose to destroy civilization1 rather than acquiesce in the abolition of war4 ,the matters in which the interests of nations are supposed to clash are mainly three3 tariffs1 which are a delusion2 the exploitation of inferior races1 which is a crime2 pride of power and dominion1 which is a schoolboy folly4 ,the economic argument against tariffs is familiar1 and ,i shall not repeat it4 ,the only reason why it fails to carry conviction is the enmity between nations4 ,nobody proposes to set up a tariff between ,england and ,scotland1 or between ,lancashire and ,yorkshire4 ,yet the arguments by which tariffs between nations are supported might be used just as well to defend tariffs between counties4 ,universal free trade would indubitably be of economic benefit to mankind1 and would be adopted to-morrow if it were not for the hatred and suspicion which nations feel one toward another4 ,from the point of view of preserving the peace of the world1 free trade between the different civilized states is not so important as the open door in their dependencies4 ,the desire for exclusive markets is one of the most potent causes of war4 ,exploiting what are called inferior races has become one of the main objects of ,european statecraft4 ,it is not only1 or primarily1 trade that is desired1 but opportunities for investment2 finance is more concerned in the matter than industry4 ,rival diplomatists are very often the servants1 conscious or unconscious1 of rival groups of financiers4 ,the financiers1 though themselves of no particular nation1 understand the art of appealing to national prejudice1 and of inducing the taxpayer to incur expenditure of which they reap the benefit4 ,the evils which they produce at home1 and the devastation that they spread among the races whom they exploit1 are part of the price which the world has to pay for its acquiescence in the capitalist rgime4 ,but neither tariffs nor financiers would be able to cause serious trouble1 if it were not for the sentiment of national pride4 ,national pride might be on the whole beneficent1 if it took the direction of emulation in the things that are important to civilization4 ,if we prided ourselves upon our poets1 our men of science1 or the justice and humanity of our social system1 we might find in national pride a stimulus to useful endeavors4 ,but such matters play a very small part4 ,national pride1 as it exists now1 is almost exclusively concerned with power and dominion1 with the extent of territory that a nation owns1 and with its capacity for enforcing its will against the opposition of other nations4 ,in this it is reinforced by group morality4 ,to nine citizens out of ten it seems self-evident1 whenever the will of their own nation clashes with that of another1 that their own nation must be in the right4 ,even if it were not in the right on the particular issue1 yet it stands in general for so much nobler ideals than those represented by the other nation to the dispute1 that any increase in its power is bound to be for the good of mankind4 ,since all nations equally believe this of themselves1 all are equally ready to insist upon the victory of their own side in any dispute in which they believe that they have a good hope of victory4 ,while this temper persists1 the hope of international coperation must remain dim4 ,if men could divest themselves of the sentiment of rivalry and hostility between different nations1 they would perceive that the matters in which the interests of different nations coincide immeasurably outweigh those in which they clash2 they would perceive1 to begin with1 that trade is not to be compared to warfare2 that the man who sells you goods is not doing you an injury4 ,no one considers that the butcher and the baker are his enemies because they drain him of money4 ,yet as soon as goods come from a foreign country1 we are asked to believe that we suffer a terrible injury in purchasing them4 ,no one remembers that it is by means of goods exported that we purchase them4 ,but in the country to which we export1 it is the goods we send which are thought dangerous1 and the goods we buy are forgotten4 ,the whole conception of trade1 which has been forced upon us by manufacturers who dreaded foreign competition1 by trusts which desired to secure monopolies1 and by economists poisoned by the virus of nationalism1 is totally and absolutely false4 ,trade results simply from division of labor4 ,a man cannot himself make all the goods of which he has need1 and therefore he must exchange his produce with that of other people4 ,what applies to the individual1 applies in exactly the same way to the nation4 ,there is no reason to desire that a nation should itself produce all the goods of which it has need2 it is better that it should specialize upon those goods which it can produce to most advantage1 and should exchange its surplus with the surplus of other goods produced by other countries4 ,there is no use in sending goods out of the country except in order to get other goods in return4 ,a butcher who is always willing to part with his meat but not willing to take bread from the baker1 or boots from the bootmaker1 or clothes from the tailor1 would soon find himself in a sorry plight4 ,yet he would be no more foolish than the protectionist who desires that we should send goods abroad without receiving payment in the shape of goods imported from abroad4 ,the wage system has made people believe that what a man needs is work4 ,this1 of course1 is absurd4 ,what he needs is the goods produced by work1 and the less work involved in making a given amount of goods1 the better4 ,but owing to our economic system1 every economy in methods of production enables employers to dismiss some of their employees1 and to cause destitution1 where a better system would produce only an increase of wages or a diminution in the hours of work without any corresponding diminution of wages4 ,our economic system is topsyturvy4 ,it makes the interest of the individual conflict with the interest of the community in a thousand ways in which no such conflict ought to exist4 ,under a better system the benefits of free trade and the evils of tariffs would be obvious to all4 ,apart from trade1 the interests of nations coincide in all that makes what we call civilization4 ,inventions and discoveries bring benefit to all4 ,the progress of science is a matter of equal concern to the whole civilized world4 ,whether a man of science is an ,englishman1 a ,frenchman1 or a ,german is a matter of no real importance4 ,his discoveries are open to all1 and nothing but intelligence is required in order to profit by them4 ,the whole world of art and literature and learning is international2 what is done in one country is not done for that country1 but for mankind4 ,if we ask ourselves what are the things that raise mankind above the brutes1 what are the things that make us think the human race more valuable than any species of animals1 we shall find that none of them are things in which any one nation can have exclusive property1 but all are things in which the whole world can share4 ,those who have any care for these things1 those who wish to see mankind fruitful in the work which men alone can do1 will take little account of national boundaries1 and have little care to what state a man happens to owe allegiance4 ,the importance of international coperation outside the sphere of politics has been brought home to me by my own experience4 ,until lately ,i was engaged in teaching a new science which few men in the world were able to teach4 ,my own work in this science was based chiefly upon the work of a ,german and an ,italian4 ,my pupils came from all over the civilized world3 ,france1 ,germany1 ,austria1 ,russia1 ,greece1 ,japan1 ,china1 ,india1 and ,america4 ,none of us was conscious of any sense of national divisions4 ,we felt ourselves an outpost of civilization1 building a new road into the virgin forest of the unknown4 ,all coperated in the common task1 and in the interest of such a work the political enmities of nations seemed trivial1 temporary1 and futile4 ,but it is not only in the somewhat rarefied atmosphere of abstruse science that international coperation is vital to the progress of civilization4 ,all our economic problems1 all the questions of securing the rights of labor1 all the hopes of freedom at home and humanity abroad1 rest upon the creation of international good-will4 ,so long as hatred1 suspicion1 and fear dominate the feelings of men toward each other1 so long we cannot hope to escape from the tyranny of violence and brute force4 ,men must learn to be conscious of the common interests of mankind in which all are at one1 rather than of those supposed interests in which the nations are divided4 ,it is not necessary1 or even desirable1 to obliterate the differences of manners and custom and tradition between different nations4 ,these differences enable each nation to make its own distinctive contribution to the sum total of the world's civilization4 ,what is to be desired is not cosmopolitanism1 not the absence of all national characteristics that one associates with couriers1 wagon-lit attendants1 and others1 who have had everything distinctive obliterated by multiple and trivial contacts with men of every civilized country4 ,such cosmopolitanism is the result of loss1 not gain4 ,the international spirit which we should wish to see produced will be something added to love of country1 not something taken away4 ,just as patriotism does not prevent a man from feeling family affection1 so the international spirit ought not to prevent a man from feeling affection for his own country4 ,but it will somewhat alter the character of that affection4 ,the things which he will desire for his own country will no longer be things which can only be acquired at the expense of others1 but rather those things in which the excellence of any one country is to the advantage of all the world4 ,he will wish his own country to be great in the arts of peace1 to be eminent in thought and science1 to be magnanimous and just and generous4 ,he will wish it to help mankind on the way toward that better world of liberty and international concord which must be realized if any happiness is to be left to man4 ,he will not desire for his country the passing triumphs of a narrow possessiveness1 but rather the enduring triumph of having helped to embody in human affairs something of that spirit of brotherhood which ,christ taught and which the ,christian churches have forgotten4 ,he will see that this spirit embodies not only the highest morality1 but also the truest wisdom1 and the only road by which the nations1 torn and bleeding with the wounds which scientific madness has inflicted1 can emerge into a life where growth is possible and joy is not banished at the frenzied call of unreal and fictitious duties4 ,deeds inspired by hate are not duties1 whatever pain and self-sacrifice they may involve4 ,life and hope for the world are to be found only in the deeds of love4