utopia of usurers and other essays-第8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！


contract；　and　for　nothing　else；　and　the　act　was　so　avowedly　criminal　that
the　law　had　to　be　altered　afterwards　to　cover　the　crime。　　Now　suppose
some　postal　official；　between　here　and　Rio　Janeiro；　had　noticed　a　faint
kicking　inside　the　brown　paper　parcel；　and　had　attempted　to　ascertain　the
cause。　　And　suppose　the　clerk　could　only　explain；　in　a　muffled　voice
through　the　brown　paper；　that　he　was　by　constitution　and　temperament　a
Rebel。　　Don't　you　see　that　he　would　be　rather　understating　his　case？
Don't　you　see　he　would　be　bearing　his　injuries　much　too　meekly？　　They
might　take　him　out　of　the　parcel；　but　they　would　very　possibly　put　him
into　a　mad…house　instead。　　Symbolically　speaking；　that　is　what　they　would
like　to　do　with　us。　　Symbolically　speaking；　the　dirty　misers　who　rule　us
will　put　us　in　a　mad…houseunless　we　can　put　them　there。

Or　suppose　a　bank　cashier　were　admittedly　allowed　to　take　the　money　out　of
the　till；　and　put　it　loose　in　his　pocket；　more　or　less　mixed　up　with　his
own　money；　afterwards　laying　some　of　both　（at　different　odds）　on　〃Blue
Murder〃　for　the　Derby。　　Suppose　when　some　depositor　asked　mildly　what　day
the　accountants　came；　he　smote　that　astonished　inquirer　on　the　nose；
crying：　〃Slanderer！　　Mud…slinger！〃　and　suppose　he　then　resigned　his
position。　　Suppose　no　books　were　shown。　　Suppose　when　the　new　cashier
came　to　be　initiated　into　his　duties；　the　old　cashier　did　not　tell　him
about　the　money；　but　confided　it　to　the　honour　and　delicacy　of　his　own
maiden　aunt　at　Cricklewood。　　Suppose　he　then　went　off　in　a　yacht　to　visit
the　whale　fisheries　of　the　North　Sea。　　Well；　in　every　moral　and　legal
principle；　that　is　a　precise　account　of　the　dealings　with　the　Party　Funds。
But　what　would　the　banker　say？　What　would　the　clients　say？　　One　thing；　I
think；　I　can　venture　to　promise；　the　banker　would　not　march　up　and　down
the　office　exclaiming　in　rapture；　〃I'm　a　rebel！　　That's　what　I　am；　a　rebel！〃
And　if　he　said　to　the　first　indignant　depositor　〃You　are　a　rebel；〃　I
fear　the　depositor　might　answer；　〃You　are　a　robber。〃　We　have　no　need　to
elaborate　arguments　for　breaking　the　law。　　The　capitalists　have　broken　the
law。　　We　have　no　need　of　further　moralities。　　They　have　broken　their　own
morality。　　It　is　as　if　you　were　to　run　down　the　street　shouting；
〃Communism！　　Communism！　Share！　　Share！〃　　after　a　man　who　had　run　away　with
your　watch。

We　want　a　term　that　will　tell　everybody　that　there　is；　by　the　common
standard；　frank　fraud　and　cruelty　pushed　to　their　fierce　extreme；　and　that
we　are　fighting　THEM。　We　are　not　in　a　state　of　〃divine　discontent〃；　we　are
in　an　entirely　human　and　entirely　reasonable　rage。　　We　say　we　have　been
swindled　and　oppressed；　and　we　are　quite　ready　and　able　to　prove　it　before
any　tribunal　that　allows　us　to　call　a　swindler　a　swindler。　　It　is　the
protection　of　the　present　system　that　most　of　its　tribunals　do　not。　　I
cannot　at　the　moment　think　of　any　party　name　that　would　particularly
distinguish　us　from　our　more　powerful　and　prosperous　opponents；　unless　it
were　the　name　the　old　Jacobites　gave　themselves；　the　Honest　Party。


Captured　Our　Standards

I　think　it　is　plain　that　for　the　purpose　of　facing　these　new　and　infamous
modern　facts；　we　cannot；　with　any　safety；　depend　on　any　of　the　old
nineteenth　century　names；　Socialist；　or　Communist；　or　Radical；　or　Liberal；
or　Labour。　　They　are　all　honourable　names；　they　all　stand；　or　stood；　for
things　in　which　we　may　still　believe；　we　can　still　apply　them　to　other
problems；　but　not　to　this　one。　　We　have　no　longer　a　monopoly　of　these
names。　　Let　it　be　understood　that　I　am　not　speaking　here　of　the
philosophical　problem　of　their　meaning；　but　of　the　practical　problem　of
their　use。　　When　I　called　myself　a　Radical　I　knew　Mr。　Balfour　would　not
call　himself　a　Radical；　therefore　there　was　some　use　in　the　word。　　When　I
called　myself　a　Socialist　I　knew　Lord　Penrhyn　would　not　call　himself　a
Socialist；　therefore　there　was　some　use　in　the　word。　　But　the　capitalists；
in　that　aggressive　march　which　is　the　main　fact　of　our　time；　have　captured
our　standards；　both　in　the　military　and　philosophic　sense　of　the　word。
And　it　is　useless　for　us　to　march　under　colours　which　they　can　carry　as
well　as　we。

Do　you　believe　in　Democracy？　　The　devils　also　believe　and　tremble。　　Do　you
believe　in　Trades　Unionism？　　The　Labour　Members　also　believe；　and　tremble
like　a　falling　teetotum。　　Do　you　believe　in　the　State？　　The　Samuels　also
believe；　and　grin。　　Do　you　believe　in　the　centralisation　of　Empire？　　So
did　Beit。　　Do　you　believe　in　the　decentralisation　of　Empire？　　So　does　Albu。
Do　you　believe　in　the　brotherhood　of　men：　and　do　you；　dear　brethren；
believe　that　Brother　Arthur　Henderson　does　not？　　Do　you　cry；　〃The　world
for　the　workers！〃　　and　do　you　imagine　Philip　Snowden　would　not？　　What　we
need　is　a　name　that　shall　declare；　not　that　the　modern　treason　and　tyranny
are　bad；　but　that　they　are　quite　literally；　intolerable：　and　that　we　mean
to　act　accordingly。　　I　really　think　〃the　Limits〃　would　be　as　good　a　name
as　any。　　But；　anyhow；　something　is　born　among　us　that　is　as　strong　as　an
infant　Hercules：　and　it　is　part　of　my　prejudices　to　want　it　christened。　　I
advertise　for　godfathers　and　godmothers。



A　WORKMAN'S　HISTORY　OF　ENGLAND

A　thing　which　does　not　exist　and　which　is　very　much　wanted　is　〃A
Working…Man's　History　of　England。〃　　I　do　not　mean　a　history　written　for
working　men　（there　are　whole　dustbins　of　them）；　I　mean　a　history；　written
by　working　men　or　from　the　working　men's　standpoint。　　I　wish　five
generations　of　a　fisher's　or　a　miner's　family　could　incarnate　themselves
in　one　man　and　tell　the　story。

It　is　impossible　to　ignore　altogether　any　comment　coming　from　so　eminent　a
literary　artist　as　Mr。　Laurence　Housman；　but　I　do　not　deal　here　so
specially　with　his　well　known　conviction　about　Votes　for　Women；　as　with
another　idea　which　is；　I　think；　rather　at　the　back　of　it；　if　not　with　him
at　least　with　others；　and　which　concerns　this　matter　of　the　true　story　of
England。　　For　the　true　story　is　so　entirely　different　from　the　false
official　story　that　the　official　classes　tell　that　by　this　time　the
working　class　itself　has　largely　forgotten　its　own　experience。　　Either
story　can　be　quite　logically　linked　up　with　Female　Suffrage；　which；
therefore；　I　leave　where　it　is　for　the　moment；　merely　confessing　that；　so
long　as　we　get　hold　of　the　right　story　and　not　the　wrong　story；　it　seems
to　me　a　matter　of　secondary　importance　whether　we　link　it　up　with　Female
Suffrage　or　not。

Now　the　ordinary　version　of　recent　English　history　that　most　moderately
educated　people　have　absorbed　from　childhood　is　something　like　this。　　That
we　emerged　slowly　from　a　semi…barbarism　in　which　all　the　power　and　wealth
were　in　the　hands　of　Kings　and　a　few　nobles；　that　the　King's　power　was
broken　first　and　then　in　due　time　that　of　the　nobles；　that　this　piece…meal
improvement　was　brought　about　by　one　class　after　another　waking　up　to　a
sense　of　citizenship　and　demanding　a　place　in　the　national　councils；
frequently　by　riot　or　violence；　and　that　in　consequence　of　such　menacing
popular　action；　the　franchise　was　granted　to　one　class　after　another　and
used　more　and　more　to　improve　the　social　conditions　of　those　classes；
until　we　practically　became　a　democracy；　save　for　such　exceptions　as　that
of　the　women。　　I　do　not　think　anyone　will　deny　that　something　like　that　is
the　general　idea　of　the　educated　man　who　reads　a　newspaper　and　of　the
newspaper　that　he　reads。　　That　is　the　view　current　at　public　schools　and
colleges；　it　is　part　of　the　culture　of　all　the　classes　that　count　for　much
in　government；　and　there　is　not　one　word　of　truth　in　it　from　beginning　to
end。


That　Great　Reform　Bill

Wealth　and　political　power　were　very　much　more　popularly　distributed　in
the　Middle　Ages　than　they　are　now；　but　we　will　pass　all　that　and　consider
recent　history。　　The　franchise　has　never　been　largely　and　liberally
granted　in　England；　half　the　males　have　no　vote　and　are　not　likely　to　get
one。　　It　was　_never_　granted　in　reply　to　pressure　from　awakened　sections
of　the　democracy；　in　every　case　there　was　a　perfectly　clear　motive　for
granting　it　solely　for　the　convenience　of　the　aristocrats。　　The　Great
Reform　Bill　was　not　passed　in　response　to　such　riots　as　that　which
destroyed　a　Castle；　nor　did　the　men　who　destroyed　the　Castle　get　any
advantage　whatever　out　of　the　Great　Reform　Bill。　　The　Great　Reform　Bill
was　passed　in　order　to　seal　an　alliance　between　the　landed　aristocrats　and
the　rich　manufacturers　of　the　north　（an　alliance　that　rules　us　still）；　and
the　chief　object　of　that　alliance　was　to　_prevent_　the　English　populace
getting　any　political　power　in　the　general　excitement　after　the　French
Revolution。　　No　one　can　read　Macaulay's　speech　on　the　Chartists；　for
instance；　and　not　see　that　this　is　so。　　Disraeli's　further　extension　of
the　suffrage　was　not　effected　by　the　intellectual　vivacity　and　pure
republican　theory　of　the　mid…Victorian　agricultural　labourer；　it　was
effected　by　a　politician　who　saw　an　opportunity　to　dish　the　Whigs；　and
guessed　that　certain　orthodoxies　in　the　more　prosperous　artisan　might　yet
give　him　a　balance　against　the　commercial　Radicals。　　And　while　this　very
thin　game　of　wire…pulling　with　the　mere　abstraction　of　the　vote　was　being
worked　entirely　by　the　oligarchs　and　entirely　in　their　interests；　the
solid　and　real　thing　that　was　going　on　was　the　steady　despoiling　of　the
poor　of　all　power　or　wealth；　until　they　find　themselves　to…day　upon　the
threshold　of　slavery。　　That　is　The　Working　Man's　History　of　England。

Now；　as　I　have　said；　I　care　comparatively　little　what　is　done　with　the
mere　voting　part　of　the　matter；　so　long　as　it　is　not　clone　in　such　a　way
as　to　allow　the　plutocrat　to　escape　his　responsibility　for　his　crimes；　by
pretending　to　be　much　more　progressive；　or　much　more　susceptible　to
popular　protest；　than　he　ever　has　been。　　And　there　is　this　danger　in　many
of　those　who　have　answered　me。　　One　of　them；　for　instance；　says　that　women
have　been　forced　into　their　present　industrial　situations　by　the　same　iron
economic　laws　that　have　compelled　men。　　I　say　that　men　have　not　been
compelled　by　iron　economic　laws；　but　in　the　main　by　the