As for the progress of science, that depends very largely upon the degree of intellectual liberty existing in the new society.If all science is organized and supervised by the State, it will rapidly become stereotyped and dead.Fundamental advances will not be made, because, until they have been made, they will seem too doubtful to warrant the expenditure of public money upon them.Authority will be in the hands of the old, especially of men who have achieved scientific eminence; such men will be hostile to those among the young who do not flatter them by agreeing with their theories.Under a bureaucratic State Socialism it is to be feared that science would soon cease to be progressive and acquired a medieval respect for authority.
But under a freer system, which would enable all kinds of groups to employ as many men of science as they chose, and would allow the``vagabond's wage'' to those who desired to pursue some study so new as to be wholly unrecognized, there is every reason to think that science would flourish as it has never done hitherto.[61] And, if that were the case, I do not believe that any other obstacle would exist to the physical possibility of our system.
[61] See the discussion of this question in the preceding chapter.
The question of the number of hours of work necessary to produce general material comfort is partly technical, partly one of organization.We may assume that there would no longer be unproductive labor spent on armaments, national defense, advertisements, costly luxuries for the veryrich, or any of the other futilities incidental to our competitive system.If each industrial guild secured for a term of years the advantages, or part of the advantages, of any new invention or methods which it introduced, it is pretty certain that every encouragement would be given to technical progress.The life of a discoverer or inventor is in itself agreeable: those who adopt it, as things are now, are seldom much actuated by economic motives, but rather by the interest of the work together with the hope of honor; and these motives would operate more widely than they do now, since fewer people would be prevented from obeying them by economic necessities.And there is no doubt that intellect would work more keenly and creatively in a world where instinct was less thwarted, where the joy of life was greater, and where consequently there would be more vitality in men than there is at present.
There remains the population question, which, ever since the time of Malthus, has been the last refuge of those to whom the possibility of a better world is disagreeable.But this question is now a very different one from what it was a hundred years ago.The decline of the birth-rate in all civilized countries, which is pretty certain to continue, whatever economic system is adopted, suggests that, especially when the probable effects of the war are taken into account, the population of Western Europe is not likely to increase very much beyond its present level, and that of America is likely only to increase through immigration.Negroes may continue to increase in the tropics, but are not likely to be a serious menace to the white inhabitants of temperate regions.There remains, of course, the Yellow Peril; but by the time that begins to be serious it is quite likely that the birth-rate will also have begun to decline among the races of Asia If not, there are other means of dealing with this question; and in any case the whole matter is too conjectural to be set up seriously as a bar to our hopes.I conclude that, though no certain forecast is possible, there is not any valid reason for regarding the possible increase of population as a serious obstacle to Socialism.
Our discussion has led us to the belief that the communal ownership of land and capital, which constitutes the characteristic doctrine of Socialism and Anarchist Communism, is a necessary step toward the removal of theevils from which the world suffers at present and the creation of such a society as any humane man must wish to see realized.But, though a necessary step, Socialism alone is by no means sufficient.There are various forms of Socialism: the form in which the State is the employer, and all who work receive wages from it, involves dangers of tyranny and interference with progress which would make it, if possible, even worse than the present regime.On the other hand, Anarchism, which avoids the dangers of State Socialism, has dangers and difficulties of its own, which make it probable that, within any reasonable period of time, it could not last long even if it were established.Nevertheless, it remains an ideal to which we should wish to approach as nearly as possible, and which, in some distant age, we hope may be reached completely.Syndicalism shares many of the defects of Anarchism, and, like it, would prove unstable, since the need of a central government would make itself felt almost at once.
The system we have advocated is a form of Guild Socialism, leaning more, perhaps, towards Anarchism than the official Guildsman would wholly approve.It is in the matters that politicians usually ignore-- science and art, human relations, and the joy of life --that Anarchism is strongest, and it is chiefly for the sake of these things that we included such more or less Anarchist proposals as the ``vagabond's wage.'' It is by its effects outside economics and politics, at least as much as by effects inside them, that a social system should be judged.And if Socialism ever comes, it is only likely to prove beneficent if non- economic goods are valued and consciously pursued.
The world that we must seek is a world in which the creative spirit is alive, in which life is an adventure full of joy and hope, based rather upon the impulse to construct than upon the desire to retain what we possess or to seize what is possessed by others.It must be a world in which affection has free play, in which love is purged of the instinct for domination, in which cruelty and envy have been dispelled by happiness and the unfettered development of all the instincts that build up life and fill it with mental delights.Such a world is possible; it waits only for men to wish to create it.
Meantime, the world in which we exist has other aims.But it will passaway, burned up in the fire of its own hot passions; and from its ashes will spring a new and younger world, full of fresh hope, with the light of morning in its eyes.
