utopia of usurers and other essays-第16部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


we　were　counting　by　skulls。　　When　we　said　that　the　majority　consisting　of
Proletarians　would　be　everywhere　opposed　to　the　minority；　consisting　of
Capitalists；　we　were　counting　by　skulls。　　Why；　yes；　if　all　men's　heads
had　been　cut　off　from　the　rest　of　them；　as　they　were　by　the　good　sense　and
foresight　of　Timour　the　Tartar；　if　they　had　no　hearts　or　bellies　to　be
moved；　no　hand　that　flies　up　to　ward　off　a　weapon；　no　foot　that　can　feel　a
familiar　soilif　things　were　so　the　Marxian　calculation　would　be　not　only
complete　but　correct。　　As　we　know　to…day；　the　Marxian　calculation　is
complete；　but　it　is　not　correct。

Now；　this　is　the　answer　to　the　questions　of　some　kind　critics；　whose
actual　words　I　have　not　within　reach　at　the　moment；　about　whether　my
democracy　meant　the　rule　of　the　majority　over　the　minority。　　It　means　the
rule　of　the　rulethe　rule　of　the　rule　over　the　exception。　　When　a　nation
finds　a　soul　it　clothes　it　with　a　body；　and　does　verily　act　like　one
living　thing。　　There　is　nothing　to　be　said　about　those　who　are　out　of　it；
except　that　they　are　out　of　it。　　After　talking　about　it　in　the　abstract
for　decades；　this　is　Democracy；　and　it　is　marvellous　in　our　eyes。　　It　is
not　the　difference　between　ninetynine　persons　and　a　hundred　persons；　it　is
one　personthe　people。　　I　do　not　know　or　care　how　many　or　how　few　of　the
Belgians　like　or　dislike　the　pictures　of　Wiertz。　　They　could　not　be　either
justified　or　condemned　by　a　mere　majority　of　Belgians。　　But　I　am　very
certain　that　the　defiance　to　Prussia　did　not　come　from　a　majority　of
Belgians。　　It　came　from　Belgium　one　and　indivisibleatheists；　priests；
princes　of　the　blood；　Frenchified　shopkeepers；　Flemish　boors；　men；　women；
and　children；　and　the　sooner　we　understand　that　this　sort　of　thing　can
happen　the　better　for　us。　　For　it　is　this　spontaneous　spiritual　fellowship
of　communities　under　certain　conditions　to　which　the　four　or　five　most
independent　minds　of　Europe　willingly　bear　witness　to…day。

But　is　there　no　exception：　is　there　no　one　faithful　among　the　unfaithful
found？　　Is　no　great　Socialist　politician　still　untouched　by　the　patriotism
of　the　vulgar？　　Why；　yes；　the　rugged　Ramsay　MacDonald；　scarred　with　a
hundred　savage　fights　against　the　capitalist　parties；　still　lifts　up　his
horny　hand　for　peace。　　What　further　need　have　we　of　witnesses？　　I；　for　my
part；　am　quite　satisfied；　and　do　not　doubt　that　Mr。　MacDonald　will　be　as
industrious　in　damping　down　democracy　in　this　form　as　in　every　other。


A　REAL　DANGER

Heaven　forbid　that　I　should　once　more　wade　in　those　swamps　of　logomachy
and　tautology　in　which　the　old　guard　of　the　Determinists　still　seem　to　be
floundering。　　The　question　of　Fate　and　Free　Will　can　never　attain　to　a
conclusion；　though　it　may　attain　to　a　conviction。　　The　shortest
philosophic　summary　is　that　both　cause　and　choice　are　ultimate　ideas
within　us；　and　that　if　one　man　denies　choice　because　it　seems　contrary　to
cause；　the　other　man　has　quite　as　much　right　to　deny　cause　because　it
seems　contrary　to　choice。　　The　shortest　ethical　summary　is　that
Determinism　either　affects　conduct　or　it　does　not。　　If　it　does　not；　it　is
morally　not　worth　preaching；　if　it　does；　it　must　affect　conduct　in　the
direction　of　impotence　and　submission。　　A　writer　in　the　〃Clarion〃　says
that　the　reformer　cannot　help　trying　to　reform；　nor　the　Conservative　help
his　Conservatism。　　But　suppose　the　reformer　tries　to　reform　the
Conservative　and　turn　him　into　another　reformer？　　Either　he　can；　in　which
case　Determinism　has　made　no　difference　at　all；　or　he　can't；　in　which　case
it　can　only　have　made　reformers　more　hopeless　and　Conservatives　more
obstinate。　　And　the　shortest　practical　and　political　summary　is　that
working　men；　most　probably；　will　soon　be　much　too　busy　using　their　Free
Will　to　stop　to　prove　that　they　have　got　it。　　Nevertheless；　I　like　to
watch　the　Determinist　in　the　〃Clarion〃　Cockpit　every　week；　as　busy　as　a
squirrelin　a　cage。　　But　being　myself　a　squirrel　（leaping　lightly　from
bough　to　bough）　and　preferring　the　form　of　activity　which　occasionally
ends　in　nuts；　I　should　not　intervene　in　the　matter　even　indirectly；　except
upon　a　practical　point。　　And　the　point　I　have　in　mind　is　practical　to　the
extent　of　deadly　peril。　　It　is　another　of　the　numerous　new　ways　in　which
the　restless　rich；　now　walking　the　world　with　an　awful　insomnia；　may
manage　to　catch　us　napping。


Must　Be　a　Mystery

There　are　two　letters　in　the　〃Clarion〃　this　week　which　in　various　ways
interest　me　very　much。　　One　is　concerned　to　defend　Darwin　against　the
scientific　revolt　against　him　that　was　led　by　Samuel　Butler；　and　among
other　things　it　calls　Bernard　Shaw　a　back　number。　　Well；　most　certainly
〃The　Origin　of　Species〃　is　a　back　number；　in　so　far　as　any　honest　and
interesting　book　ever　can　be；　but　in　pure　philosophy　nothing　can　be　out　of
date；　since　the　universe　must　be　a　mystery　even　to　the　believer。　　There　is；
however；　one　condition　of　things　in　which　I　do　call　it　relevant　to
describe　somebody　as　behind　the　times。　　That　is　when　the　man　in　question；
thinking　of　some　state　of　affairs　that　has　passed　away；　is　really　helping
the　very　things　he　would　like　to　hinder。　　The　principles　cannot　alter；　but
the　problems　can。　　Thus；　I　should　call　a　man　behind　the　times　who；　in　the
year　1872；　pleaded　for　the　peaceful　German　peasants　against　the　triumphant
militarism　of　Napoleon。　　Or　I　should　call　a　man　out　of　date　who；　in　the
year　1892；　wished　for　a　stronger　Navy　to　compete　with　the　Navy　of　Holland；
because　it　had　once　swept　the　sea　and　sailed　up　the　Thames。　　And　I
certainly　call　a　man　or　a　movement　out　of　date　that；　in　the　year　1914；
when　we　few　are　fighting　a　giant　machine；　strengthened　with　all　material
wealth　and　worked　with　all　the　material　sciences；　thinks　that　our　chief
danger　is　from　an　excess　of　moral　and　religious　responsibility。　　He
reminds　me　of　Mr。　Snodgrass；　who　had　the　presence　of　mind　to　call　out
〃Fire！〃　　when　Mr。　　Pickwick　fell　through　the　ice。

The　other　letter　consists　of　the　usual　wiredrawn　argument　for　fatalism。
Man　cannot　imagine　the　universe　being　created；　and　therefore　is　〃compelled
by　his　reason〃　to　think　the　universe　without　beginning　or　end；　which　（I
may　remark）　he　cannot　imagine　either。　　But　the　letter　ends　with　something
much　more　ominous　than　bad　metaphysics。　　Here；　in　the　middle　of　the
〃Clarion；〃　in　the　centre　of　a　clean　and　combative　democratic　sheet；　I　meet
again　my　deplorable　old　acquaintance；　the　scientific　criminologist。　　〃The
so…called　evil…doer　should　not　be　punished　for　his　acts；　but　restrained。〃
In　forty…eight　hours　I　could　probably　get　a　petition　to　that　effect　signed
by　millionaires。　　A　short　time　ago　a　Bill　was　introduced　to　hold
irresponsible　and　〃restrain〃　a　whole　new　class　of　people；　who　were
〃incapable　of　managing　their　affairs　with　prudence。〃　　Read　the　supporters'
names　on　the　back　of　that　Bill；　and　see　what　sort　of　democrats　they　were。

Now；　clearing　our　heads　of　what　is　called　popular　science　（which　means
going　to　sleep　to　a　lullaby　of　long　words）；　let　us　use　our　own　brains　a
little；　and　ask　ourselves　what　is　the　real　difference　between　punishing　a
man　and　restraining　him。　　The　material　difference　may　be　any　or　none；　for
punishment　may　be　very　mild；　and　restraint　may　be　very　ruthless。　　The　man；
of　course；　must　dislike　one　as　much　as　the　other；　or　it　would　not　be
necessary　to　restrain　him　at　all。　　And　I　assure　you　he　will　get　no　great
glow　of　comfort　out　of　your　calling　him　irresponsible　after　you　have　made
him　impotent。　　A　man　does　not　necessarily　feel　more　free　and　easy　in　a
straight　waistcoat　than　in　a　stone　cell。　　The　moral　difference　is　that　a
man　can　be　punished　for　a　crime　because　he　is　born　a　citizen；　while　he　can
be　constrained　because　he　is　born　a　slave。　　But　one　arresting　and
tremendous　difference　towers　over　all　these　doubtful　or　arguable
differences。　　There　is　one　respect；　vital　to　all　our　liberties　and　all　our
lives；　in　which　the　new　restraint　would　be　different　from　the　old
punishment。　　It　is　of　this　that　the　plutocrats　will　take　advantage。


The　Plain　Difference

The　perfectly　plain　difference　is　this。　　All　punishment；　even　the　most
horrible；　proceeds　upon　the　assumption　that　the　extent　of　the。　　evil　is
known；　and　that　a　certain　amount　of　expiation　goes　with　it。　　Even　if　you
hang　the　man；　you　cannot　hang　him　twice。　　Even　if　you　burn　him；　you　cannot
burn　him　for　a　month。　　And　in　the　case　of　all　ordinary　imprisonments；　the
whole　aim　of　free　institutions　from　the　beginning　of　the　world　has　been　to
insist　that　a　man　shall　be　convicted　of　a　definite　crime　and　confined　for
a　definite　period。　　But　the　moment　you　admit　this　notion　of　medical
restraint；　you　must　in　fairness　admit　that　it　may　go　on　as　long　as　the
authorities　choose　to　think　（or　say）　that　it　ought　to　go　on。　　The　man's
punishment　refers　to　the　past；　which　is　supposed　to　have　been　investigated；
and　which；　in　some　degree　at　least；　has　been　investigated。　　But　his
restraint　refers　to　the　future；　which　his　doctors；　keepers；　and　wardens
have　yet　to　investigate。　　The　simple　result　will　be　that；　in　the
scientific　Utopia　of　the　〃Clarion；〃　men　like　Mann　or　Syme　or　Larkin　will
not　be　put　in　prison　because　of　what　they　have　done。　　They　will　be　kept　in
prison　because　of　what　they　might　do。　　Indeed；　the　builders　of　the　new
tyranny　have　already　come　very　near　to　avowing　this　scientific　and
futurist　method。　　When　the　lawyers　tried　to　stop　the　〃Suffragette〃　from
appearing　at　all；　they　practically　said：　〃We　do　not　know　your　next　week's
crime；　because　it　isn't　committed　yet；　but　we　are　scientifically　certain
you　have　the　criminal　type。　　And　by　the　sublime　and　unalterable　laws　of
heredity；　all　your　poor　little　papers　will　inherit　it。〃

This　is　a　purely　practical　question；　and　that　is　why　I　insist　on　it；　even
in　such　strenuous　times。　　The　writers　on　the　〃Clarion〃　have　a　perfect
right　to　think　Christianity　is　the　foe　of　freedom；　or　even　that　the
stupidity　and　tyranny　of　the　present　Government　is　due　to　the　monkish
mysticism　of　Lord　Morley　and　Mr。　John　M。　Robertson。　　They　have　a　right　to
think　the　theory　of　Determinism　as　true　as　Calvin　thought　it。　　But　I　do
not　like　seeing　them　walk　straight　into　the　enormous　iron