The Dominion. MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1909. "NEW WORLDS FOR OLD."

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 396, 4 January 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1909. "NEW WORLDS FOR OLD."

i..:v. ■>.. ■/■'-■'. ' ' ■ Anything from Me. H. G. Wells's pen ' is interesting.. Naturally in!;a serious study of actual social conditions and of supposedly practicable reforms the author's imagination haa not the unfettered rango permitted in the construction of frankly imaginary Utopias. Perhaps, 3 too, in the constructive portion of his J book, "New Worlds for Old," the facts i and arguments arc , scarcely cogent enough to compensate for the plqasing in- \ ventiveness of the fanciful sketqhes. » Still, tho book is an able and interesting presentment of Socialism. Its main weakness, one common to Socialistic literature, is that the author implicitly as--3 sumes that all social evils wo see are the outcome of our economic system, and' removable by; the substitution of colloctiv- '• ism. This is, indeed, explicitly denied by Me. Wells, but again and again he argues as if it were an axiom, Another fault is a.vagueness of statement; a - failure to define the actual aims .and methods of Socialists—perhaps we should D, rather say the aims and methods of the writer —and to show-how they differ from thoßO of non-Socialiete who strive for/the caneral good. Mb. Wells doflncs Snoial-.

ism as "a great intellectual process,' a dc- t velopment of desires and ideas that o takes the form of a project for tho re- n shaping of human society upon new and, c better lines." This is perfectly iuoffon- o sivo, but somewhat too hazy for a working v definition of Socialism. May we not t see in such utterances as this the explana- v tion why Socialism is bo attractive to e woll-intontioned humane people whose pot sition in life does not render them naturally antagonistic to the practical aims hidden under such nebulous platitudes, and who are unaccustomed to clear thinking 1 If Sooialism means merely social improvement,-then indeed "we are all Socialists." To claim" all disinterested t effort for tho common good as Socialistic c is to rob "Socialism" of any distinctive meaning- But this is what Mr. Wells * time and again explicitly does, and in c this he is following in tho footsteps of the t majority of advocates of the cause. Let i tho ultimate aim of Socialism be kept 1 distinct from its methods. The former * we take, to be the common good and pro- t gressivo improvement of mankind. The < latter are in chief: nationalisation of r land, capital, and means of production, i and State regulation of industry; ! These * appear to be tho irreducible minimum £ of the Socialism wo ha've to face as a J matter of practical politics, and Me. J Wells by and by condescending to particulars gives us these, with other items • as old age pensions, and State support ' of mothers, and children, as ■ the 1 answer to, "How the re-shaping of hu- ' man society is to be brought about." | Now, it is solely about the methods, not ] at all about the final aim to benefit man- ' kind that Socialists and non-Socialists I join issue, and if thore is to be any fruit- ' ful discussion of the probable working I'of tho changes Socialists urge, there must not be a constant shifting of. ground from matter to method and back. Socialism must not moan in one breath love of one's neighbour or enlightened perception of the solidarity of mankind, and in tho next universal. State regulation of social activities, ..Wholly, non-political j philanthropic effort has done and is doling immeasurably more for tho . "reshaping of society on new and better linos" than all the Socialistic societies that have existed. Tho Salvation • Army is a more potent instrument for ' the world's betterment than the Fabian Society.. This, of course, proves nothing as to the utility or othorwise of collcc; tivism. But it does show that tho forces of light and of darkness, are not arrayed respectively under the Socialistic and anti-Socialistic banners. Thoughtful an-. ti-Socialists are not satisfied with the world as it is; many of them are fighting against the misery, and debasement of which such t?rriblo examples are quoted by Mni Wells. But that they recognise that evil has other roots besides economic inequality, and they oppose Socialism as a principle arid a political platform not because they oppose all forms of State action, but becauso they hold that to take away or greatly lessen the incentive of private gain and of necessity of exertion for vrifo and children must deteriorate character. Me. Wells, says that the. fundamental idoa upon which Socialism rests is the same fundamental idea as that upon which all real scientific work is carried on. It is "tho denial,that chance impulse and, individual will and happening constitute tho only possible methods by 'which things may be done In 'the world." Socialism may very well make this denial, sinco ife was implicitly made in the. prehistoric days when man began to differentiate' from brute, and has been acted on more arid more over since —not to mention that it is made by the various degrees of co-operation found in the animal world. Socialism is not an alternative to anarchy., And that very much more may be done in the way of co-opera-tion and "scientific" organisation of sooial activities is denied by no one. Here again as. in revolt against human misery and degradation, there is nothing peculiar to Socialism. Anti-So-cialists argue that it is against human nature for man to work as hard for the common good as he would do for his own and the good of his dear ones. Mr, Wells pours scorn on this objection,. pointing to the undisputed fact that the highest achievements of human naturo and much of the best everyday work of the world fare done from other motives than that' of material gain Nono the less the fact remains that human beings in the mass will not forth day after _ day tbe same effort for abstract principle or the hope of increasing by an infinitesimal amount the common sum of well-being that they would do if their own lot and that of those hear and dear to them depended on their exertions. Thus nonSocialists look dubiously on Mr. Wells's proposal to grant State aid to married women for the rearing of each child. For while they -compassionate as rnuchas Mr. Wells the hard lot of mothers of the poorer classes, and see as clearly as he the desirability of ensuring good condition's of birth and upbringing, for all children, thoy bold that it is "contrary to human nature" that the husband and father should display "' as much energy when the lot.of wife and. children is independent of his exertions as, when dependent on them •■■. \ .-. , ; : .' Among Socialist writers Mr. Wklls is conspicuous for his moderation. His Socialistic state would allow of considerable social inequality;' would evon permit private enterprise in. various minor businesses. Changes must'.be mado by degrees, and tentatively, "Socialism is no garment made and finished that wo can reasonably ask the world to wear forthwith." Expropriation must be carried onf gradually, "reasonable" compensation being granted. There can be no sudden revolution; changed institutions must be based on changed ideas, and to change ideas is not the work of a day, The only criticism to bo mado on those moderate and practical admissions is. that thoy blur the, distinction between Socialism and non-Socialism ! Universal education, old ago pensions, ay minimum wage, are riot the exclusive property of the Socialist party. In proportion as Socialism becomes reasonable and inoffensive so does it lose its distinctiveness. Our present system is a blond of individualism and collectivism. The underlying question at issue botwoon of Socialism and other strivers-,after social improvement is whether good both wish for can be won. by making the State universal organiser and provider, or by allowing-tho froest play to usefully directed individual energies, couraging self-reliance and iridustry. Even Me. Wells would probably; admit, that , if Socialism were in' tho near futuro to such a political pofter as

to force legislation for State provision of omployment at high pay; for Stato maintenance of children, and for general contraction and hampering of the scopo of private enterprise, the "spirit of service" would be found quito inadequate to replace the flouted "spirit of gain" which the world has so far found the most reliable incentive to exertion, and thus to social progress. ■ ■■':■■.