The great strike of transportation workers, in the summer of 1911, widened the breach between Laborites and Liberals, and between the extreme and moderate Socialists. This strike spread from the dockers of Liverpool to London, from the dockers to the railway workers, and then to the teamsters and drivers of the larger cities, until a general tie-up of transportation was threatened. It came very near being a model general strike. Its violence was met with a call for the troops. The labor members in Parliament protested earnestly against the use of soldiers. But the government was prompt and firm in its suppression of disorder. A bitter debate took place between the government and the labor leaders.[47]

How much of this give and take must be attributed to the play of politics, it is impossible to declare. But this great strike clearly revealed the difference between violent Socialism and moderate radicalism. The one is willing to effect revolutions through law and order, the other to effect them through violence and disruption.

The moderate Socialists seem willing to take a middle course between these extremes. The following quotation from a speech delivered by Ramsay MacDonald, leader of the Labor Party, at a convention of the I.L.P., clearly ill.u.s.trates the moderate view:

"We can cut off kings' heads after a few battles, we can change a monarchy into a republic, we can deprive people of their t.i.tles, and we can make similar superficial alterations by force; but n.o.body who understands the power of habit and of custom in human conduct, who appreciates the fact that by far and away the greater amount of an action is begun, controlled, and specified by the system of social interrelationship in which we live, move, and have our being; and still more, n.o.body who understands the delicate and intricate complexity of production and exchange which keeps modern society going, will dream for a single moment of changing it by any act of violence. As soon as that act is committed, every vital force in society will tend to re-establish the relationship which we have been trying to end, and what is more, these vital forces will conquer us in the form of a violent reaction, a counter revolution. When we cut off a newt's tail, a newt's tail will grow on again.

"I want the" I.L.P.'s action "to be determined by our numbers, our relative strength, the state of public opinion, the character of the question before the country. I appeal to it that it take into account all the facts and circ.u.mstances, and not, for the sake of satisfying its soul and sentiment, go gaily on, listening to the enunciation of policies and cheering phrases which obviously do not take into account some of the most important and at the same time most difficult problems which representation in Parliament presents to it."[48] In another place MacDonald has detailed the steps in the progress of Parliamentary Socialism. He begins with "palliatives," such as factory inspection, old-age pensions, feeding of school children; next, the state engages in constructive legislation, "munic.i.p.alization and nationalization in every shape and form, from milk supplies to telephones," and finally insists on the taxing of unearned increment and a general redistribution of the burdens of the state.[49]

Not all the members of the I.L.P. are agreed upon this moderate statement. Keir Hardie and his immediate followers still cling to the "larger hope" of a socialized society, to which commonplace legislation is only a crude preliminary.

Bernard Shaw has confessed the orthodoxy of the new Social Democracy.

"n.o.body now considers Socialism as a destructive insurrection ending, if successful, in millennial absurdities," and of the budget he said: "If not a surrender of the capitalist citadel, it is at all events letting down the drawbridge."[50] The public utterances of the Radical leaders are often less restrained than those of the Socialists,[51] so that it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the difference.

Professor Hobhouse, in his a.n.a.lysis of the difference between Liberal-Radicalism and Socialism, says: "I venture to conclude that the differences between a true and consistent public-spirited liberalism and a rational collectivism, ought, with a genuine effort at mutual understanding, to disappear. The two parties are called on to make common cause against the growing power of wealth, which, by its control of the press and of the means of political organization, is more and more a menace to the healthy working of popular government."[52]

And Brougham Villiers stated, a year before the Liberals gained control of the government, that the hope of the country lay in an "alliance, won by persistent, intelligent helpfulness on the part of the Liberals, with the alienated artisans, for the betterment of the conditions of the poorest, so as to give at once hope and life and better leisure for thought."[53]

So we see Socialism and Liberalism united in accomplishing changes in legislation and ancient inst.i.tutions--changes that are revolutionary in character and will be far-reaching in results. It is not the red revolutionary Socialism of Marx; it is the practical British Socialism of amelioration. "This practical, const.i.tutional, evolutionary Socialism," a chronicler of the Fabians calls it.[54] It would have to be practical to appeal to the British voter, const.i.tutional to lure the British statesman, and evolutionary to satisfy the British philosopher.

In the troublous days of 1888-90 there were a great many young Socialists who believed the social revolution was waiting around the next corner and would soon sweep over London in gory reality. Many of these young men are sober Fabians now, or staid Conservatives or Liberals. To-day they think they were mistaken. They were not. There was a revolution around the next corner. It has already captured the high places. Society, government, is rapidly encroaching upon private property through the powers of taxation, of police supervision, and all manner of const.i.tutional instrumentalities. Ownership, even in land, is now only an incident, the rights of the community are in the ascendant. Democracy has conquered hereditary privilege. And the revolution is still advancing. England is showing the world that "The way to make Socialism safe is to make democracy real."[55]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See _supra_, p. 51.

[2] See CHIOZZA MONEY, _Riches and Poverty_, first page, edition 1911.

[3] _Op. cit._, p. 337.

[4] _Op. cit._, pp. 337-8.

[5] See V. NASH and H.L. SMITH, _The Story of the Dockers' Strike_, London, 1890.

[6] See SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB, _History of Trades Unionism_, London, 1911.

[7] There are about 650,000 members in those unions that pay out-of-work benefits. The following table gives some conception of the magnitude of the out-of-work problem in England. It shows the sums expended by the unions for out-of-work relief:

Year Amount 1898 234,000 1899 185,000 1900 261,000 1901 325,000 1902 429,000 1903 516,000 1904 655,000 1905 523,000 1906 424,000 1907 466,000

Out of a body of 15,000,000 workmen, Chiozza Money estimates that 500,000 are always out of work. _Opus cit._, p. 122.

[8] Members of Parliament received no pay until 1911, when the Radical-Liberal government pa.s.sed a law giving each member a salary of $2,000 a year.

[9] A discussion of this case from the Fabian point of view is found in the Preface to WEBB'S _History of Trades Unionism_, edition of 1911. The labor unions and the Labor Party have issued pamphlets on these two decisions. The legal points are fully discussed in the official reports of the cases.

[10] There are 15,000,000 working men and women in Great Britain; 3,000,000 belong to co-operative enterprises, 2,500,000 to trade unions.

[11] See H.M. HYNDMAN, _Autobiography_, London, 1911.

[12] Dr. Wescott, Bishop of Durham, was the founder of the Christian Social Union. His pamphlet, _Socialism_, is a real contribution to the literature on the Church and its relation to labor. The present att.i.tude of the Union may be gleaned from the following quotation taken from the letter written by Dr. Gore, Bishop of Birmingham, to his diocese, on the occasion of his transfer to the bishopric of Oxford. The letter was written during the railway and dockers' strike, in September, 1911: "There is a profound sense of unrest and dissatisfaction among workers recently. I cannot but believe that this profound discontent is justified, though some particular exhibitions of it are not. As Christians we are not justified in tolerating the conditions of life and labor under which the vast ma.s.s of our population is living. We have no right to say that these conditions are not remediable. Preventable lack of equipment for life among young, and later the insecurity of employment and inadequacy of remuneration, and consequent dest.i.tution and semi-dest.i.tution among so many people, ought to inspire in all Christians a determination to reform our industrial system."

[13] From _Statement of Principles of the League_.

[14] Even at this time the conservatism of the unions was hard to break. The vote to take this step was 546,000 to 434,000 in favor of appointing the committee.

[15] Election expenses are borne by the candidates, not by the state.

They frequently are over $3,000, and it obviously is impossible for a workingman to conduct such a campaign at his own expense.

[16] Proceedings of Labor Party, Annual Congress, 1907.

[17] See _Socialists in Great Britain_, a compilation published by the London _Times_, p. 24.

The following table shows the membership of the Labor Party since its formation in 1900, from the annual report of the party executive, 1911:

Trades Councils and Local Labor Trade Unions Parties Socialist Societies No. Membership No. No. Membership Total 1900-1 41 353,070 7 3 22,861 375,931 1901-2 65 455,450 21 2 13,861 469,311 1902-3 127 847,315 49 2 13,835 861,150 1903-4 165 956,025 76 2 13,775 969,800 1904-5 158 885,270 73 2 14,730 900,000 1905-6 158 904,496 73 2 16,784 921,280 1906-7 176 975,182 83 2 20,885 998,338{1} 1907 181 1,049,673 92 2 22,267 1,072,413{2} 1908 176 1,127,035 133 2 27,465 1,158,565{3} 1909 172 1,450,648 155 2 30,982 1,486,308{4} 1910 137 1,306,473 125 2 31,377 1,342,610{5}

{1} This total includes 2,271 Co-operators. {2} Includes 472 Co-operators. {3} Includes 565 Co-operators, and 3,500 members of the Women's Labor League. {4} Includes 678 Co-operators, and 4,000 members of the Women's Labor League. {5} Includes 760 Co-operators, and 4,000 members of the Women's Labor League.

The decrease in membership during the last year is ascribed to the Osborne judgment.

[18] HAROLD c.o.x, _Socialism in the House of Commons_, p. 1.

[19] See J.A. HOBSON, _The Crisis of Liberalism_, for a discussion of the new party alignments.

eMILE BOUTMY, philosophical critic of the English, says that England, "transformed in all outward seeming, ... has just begun a new history." See his _The English People: A Study in Their Political Psychology_, London, 1904, for a keen a.n.a.lysis of English political proclivities.

[20] _Parliamentary Debates_, 5th series, vol. 21, p. 649. Speech by G. Lansbury.

[21] The new Liberal government invited John Burns into the cabinet.

He is the first workingman in English history to occupy a cabinet position. The more restless Socialists are inclined to call him a Liberal because responsibility has taught him caution. But he still persists that he is a Socialist. He is a Fabian, and boasts of the three times that he was imprisoned for partic.i.p.ating in labor agitations. About twenty years before his elevation he said in the Old Bailey, where he had been arraigned for "sedition and conspiracy" in conducting a strike: "I may tell you, my lord, that I went to work in a factory at the early age of ten years and toiled there until five months ago, when I left my workshop to stand as Parliamentary candidate for the western division of Nottingham."

It must be kept in mind that many of the Conservatives are committed to social legislation. They are not, however, in favor of the indefinite expansion of democracy, and are opposed to the adult suffrage bill as proposed by the Liberals.

[22] WILLIAM MORRIS, _Signs of Change_, p. 4.

[23] Speech delivered in St. James' Hall, March 21, 1894.

[24] Speech delivered at Newcastle, May 21, 1894.

[25] In the British House of Commons the ministry and the opposition leaders sit in the front benches on opposite sides of the House facing each other. A "front bencher" always commands a hearing, owing to his high position in the party. The members of the party sit behind their leaders and are called "back benchers." The minor groups, the Labor Party and the Irish Party, sit in the cross benches at the lower end of the chamber and are called "cross benchers."

[26] See _Annual Report Board of Education_, 1909-1910.

[27] Keir Hardie, the dean of the Socialist group in Parliament, fathered this law. Sidney Webb, the distinguished Fabian, was made a member of the commission.

[28] See First Annual Report of the Commission.