thus the future of which we spoke at the beginning has (in england at least) always been the ally of tyranny. the ordinary englishman has been duped out of his old possessions, such as they were, and always in the name of progress. the destroyers of the abbeys took away his bread and gave him a stone, assuring him that it was a precious stone, the white pebble of the lord’s elect. they took away his maypole and his original rural life and promised him instead the golden age of peace and commerce inaugurated at the crystal palace. and now they are taking away the little that remains of his dignity as a householder and the head of a family, promising him instead utopias which are called (appropriately enough) “anticipations” or “news from nowhere.” we come back, in fact, to the main feature which has already been mentioned. the past is communal: the future must be individualist. in the past are all the evils of democracy, variety and violence and doubt, but the future is pure despotism, for the future is pure caprice. yesterday, i know i was a human fool, but to-morrow i can easily be the superman.
the modern englishman, however, is like a man who should be perpetually kept out, for one reason after another, from the house in which he had meant his married life to begin. this man (jones let us call him) has always desired the divinely ordinary things; he has married for love, he has chosen or built a small house that fits like a coat; he is ready to be a great grandfather and a local god. and just as he is moving in, something goes wrong. some tyranny, personal or political, suddenly debars him from the home; and he has to take his meals in the front garden. a passing philosopher (who is also, by a mere coincidence, the man who turned him out) pauses, and leaning elegantly on the railings, explains to him that he is now living that bold life upon the bounty of nature which will be the life of the sublime future. he finds life in the front garden more bold than bountiful, and has to move into mean lodgings in the next spring. the philosopher (who turned him out), happening to call at these lodgings, with the probable intention of raising the rent, stops to explain to him that he is now in the real life of mercantile endeavor; the economic struggle between him and the landlady is the only thing out of which, in the sublime future, the wealth of nations can come. he is defeated in the economic struggle, and goes to the workhouse. the philosopher who turned him out (happening at that very moment to be inspecting the workhouse) assures him that he is now at last in that golden republic which is the goal of mankind; he is in an equal, scientific, socialistic commonwealth, owned by the state and ruled by public officers; in fact, the commonwealth of the sublime future.
nevertheless, there are signs that the irrational jones still dreams at night of this old idea of having an ordinary home. he asked for so little, and he has been offered so much. he has been offered bribes of worlds and systems; he has been offered eden and utopia and the new jerusalem, and he only wanted a house; and that has been refused him.
such an apologue is literally no exaggeration of the facts of english history. the rich did literally turn the poor out of the old guest house on to the road, briefly telling them that it was the road of progress. they did literally force them into factories and the modern wage-slavery, assuring them all the time that this was the only way to wealth and civilization. just as they had dragged the rustic from the convent food and ale by saying that the streets of heaven were paved with gold, so now they dragged him from the village food and ale by telling him that the streets of london were paved with gold. as he entered the gloomy porch of puritanism, so he entered the gloomy porch of industrialism, being told that each of them was the gate of the future. hitherto he has only gone from prison to prison, nay, into darkening prisons, for calvinism opened one small window upon heaven. and now he is asked, in the same educated and authoritative tones, to enter another dark porch, at which he has to surrender, into unseen hands, his children, his small possessions and all the habits of his fathers.
whether this last opening be in truth any more inviting than the old openings of puritanism and industrialism can be discussed later. but there can be little doubt, i think, that if some form of collectivism is imposed upon england it will be imposed, as everything else has been, by an instructed political class upon a people partly apathetic and partly hypnotized. the aristocracy will be as ready to “administer” collectivism as they were to administer puritanism or manchesterism; in some ways such a centralized political power is necessarily attractive to them. it will not be so hard as some innocent socialists seem to suppose to induce the honorable tomnoddy to take over the milk supply as well as the stamp supply—at an increased salary. mr. bernard shaw has remarked that rich men are better than poor men on parish councils because they are free from “financial timidity.” now, the english ruling class is quite free from financial timidity. the duke of sussex will be quite ready to be administrator of sussex at the same screw. sir william harcourt, that typical aristocrat, put it quite correctly. “we” (that is, the aristocracy) “are all socialists now.”
but this is not the essential note on which i desire to end. my main contention is that, whether necessary or not, both industrialism and collectivism have been accepted as necessities—not as naked ideals or desires. nobody liked the manchester school; it was endured as the only way of producing wealth. nobody likes the marxian school; it is endured as the only way of preventing poverty. nobody’s real heart is in the idea of preventing a free man from owning his own farm, or an old woman from cultivating her own garden, any more than anybody’s real heart was in the heartless battle of the machines. the purpose of this chapter is sufficiently served in indicating that this proposal also is a pis aller, a desperate second best—like teetotalism. i do not propose to prove here that socialism is a poison; it is enough if i maintain that it is a medicine and not a wine.
the idea of private property universal but private, the idea of families free but still families, of domesticity democratic but still domestic, of one man one house—this remains the real vision and magnet of mankind. the world may accept something more official and general, less human and intimate. but the world will be like a broken-hearted woman who makes a humdrum marriage because she may not make a happy one; socialism may be the world’s deliverance, but it is not the world’s desire.
