Signs of Change , livre ebook

Pub One Info - William Morris

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

78 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

pubOne.info thank you for your continued support and wish to present you this new edition. The word Revolution, which we Socialists are so often forced to use, has a terrible sound in most people's ears, even when we have explained to them that it does not necessarily mean a change accompanied by riot and all kinds of violence, and cannot mean a change made mechanically and in the teeth of opinion by a group of men who have somehow managed to seize on the executive power for the moment. Even when we explain that we use the word revolution in its etymological sense, and mean by it a change in the basis of society, people are scared at the idea of such a vast change, and beg that you will speak of reform and not revolution. As, however, we Socialists do not at all mean by our word revolution what these worthy people mean by their word reform, I can't help thinking that it would be a mistake to use it, whatever projects we might conceal beneath its harmless envelope. So we will stick to our word, which means a change of the basis of society; it may frighten people, but it will at least warn them that there is something to be frightened about, which will be no less dangerous for being ignored; and also it may encourage some people, and will mean to them at least not a fear, but a hope

Informations

Publié par	Pub One Info
Date de parution	23 octobre 2010
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9782819916802
Langue	English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0100€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

HOW WE LIVE AND HOW WE MIGHT LIVE
The word Revolution, which we Socialists are sooften forced to use, has a terrible sound in most people's ears,even when we have explained to them that it does not necessarilymean a change accompanied by riot and all kinds of violence, andcannot mean a change made mechanically and in the teeth of opinionby a group of men who have somehow managed to seize on theexecutive power for the moment. Even when we explain that we usethe word revolution in its etymological sense, and mean by it achange in the basis of society, people are scared at the idea ofsuch a vast change, and beg that you will speak of reform and notrevolution. As, however, we Socialists do not at all mean by ourword revolution what these worthy people mean by their word reform,I can't help thinking that it would be a mistake to use it,whatever projects we might conceal beneath its harmless envelope.So we will stick to our word, which means a change of the basis ofsociety; it may frighten people, but it will at least warn themthat there is something to be frightened about, which will be noless dangerous for being ignored; and also it may encourage somepeople, and will mean to them at least not a fear, but a hope.
Fear and Hope - those are the names of the two greatpassions which rule the race of man, and with which revolutionistshave to deal; to give hope to the many oppressed and fear to thefew oppressors, that is our business; if we do the first and givehope to the many, the few MUST be frightened by their hope;otherwise we do not want to frighten them; it is not revenge wewant for poor people, but happiness; indeed, what revenge can betaken for all the thousands of years of the sufferings of thepoor?
However, many of the oppressors of the poor, most ofthem, we will say, are not conscious of their being oppressors (weshall see why presently); they live in an orderly, quiet waythemselves, as far as possible removed from the feelings of a Romanslave-owner or a Legree; they know that the poor exist, but theirsufferings do not present themselves to them in a trenchant anddramatic way; they themselves have troubles to bear, and they thinkdoubtless that to bear trouble is the lot of humanity, nor havethey any means of comparing the troubles of their lives with thoseof people lower in the social scale; and if ever the thought ofthose heavier troubles obtrudes itself upon them, they consolethemselves with the maxim that people do get used to the troublesthey have to bear, whatever they may be.
Indeed, as far as regards individuals at least, thatis but too true, so that we have as supporters of the present stateof things, however bad it may be, first those comfortableunconscious oppressors who think that they have everything to fearfrom any change which would involve more than the softest and mostgradual of reforms, and secondly those poor people who, living hardand anxiously as they do, can hardly conceive of any change for thebetter happening to them, and dare not risk one tittle of theirpoor possessions in taking any action towards a possible betteringof their condition; so that while we can do little with the richsave inspire them with fear, it is hard indeed to give the poor anyhope. It is, then, no less than reasonable that those whom we tryto involve in the great struggle for a better form of life thanthat which we now lead should call on us to give them at least someidea of what that life may be like.
A reasonable request, but hard to satisfy, since weare living under a system that makes conscious effort towardsreconstruction almost impossible: it is not unreasonable on ourpart to answer, "There are certain definite obstacles to the realprogress of man; we can tell you what these are; take them away,and then you shall see."
However, I purpose now to offer myself as a victimfor the satisfaction of those who consider that as things now go wehave at least got something, and are terrified at the idea oflosing their hold of that, lest they should find they are worse offthan before, and have nothing. Yet in the course of my endeavour toshow how we might live, I must more or less deal in negatives. Imean to say I must point out where in my opinion we fall short inour present attempts at decent life. I must ask the rich andwell-to-do what sort of a position it is which they are so anxiousto preserve at any cost? and if, after all, it will be such aterrible loss to them to give it up? and I must point out to thepoor that they, with capacities for living a dignified and generouslife, are in a position which they cannot endure without continueddegradation.
How do we live, then, under our present system? Letus look at it a little.
And first, please to understand that our presentsystem of Society is based on a state of perpetual war. Do any ofyou think that this is as it should be? I know that you have oftenbeen told that the competition, which is at present the rule of allproduction, is a good thing, and stimulates the progress of therace; but the people who tell you this should call competition byits shorter name of WAR if they wish to be honest, and you wouldthen be free to consider whether or no war stimulates progress,otherwise than as a mad bull chasing you over your own garden maydo. War or competition, whichever you please to call it, means atthe best pursuing your own advantage at the cost of some one else'sloss, and in the process of it you must not be sparing ofdestruction even of your own possessions, or you will certainlycome by the worse in the struggle. You understand that perfectly asto the kind of war in which people go out to kill and be killed;that sort of war in which ships are commissioned, for instance, "tosink, burn, and destroy;" but it appears that you are not soconscious of this waste of goods when you are only carrying on thatother war called COMMERCE; observe, however, that the waste isthere all the same.
Now let us look at this kind of war a little closer,run through some of the forms of it, that we may see how the "burn,sink, and destroy" is carried on in it.
First, you have that form of it called nationalrivalry, which in good truth is nowadays the cause of all gunpowderand bayonet wars which civilized nations wage. For years past weEnglish have been rather shy of them, except on those happyoccasions when we could carry them on at no sort of risk toourselves, when the killing was all on one side, or at all eventswhen we hoped it would be. We have been shy of gunpowder war with arespectable enemy for a long while, and I will tell you why: It isbecause we have had the lion's-share of the world-market; we didn'twant to fight for it as a nation, for we had got it; but now thisis changing in a most significant, and, to a Socialist, a mostcheering way; we are losing or have lost that lion's share; it isnow a desperate "competition" between the great nations ofcivilization for the world-market, and to-morrow it may be adesperate war for that end. As a result, the furthering of war (ifit be not on too large a scale) is no longer confined to thehonour-and-glory kind of old Tories, who if they meant anything atall by it meant that a Tory war would be a good occasion fordamping down democracy; we have changed all that, and now it isquite another kind of politician that is wont to urge us on to"patriotism" as 'tis called. The leaders of the ProgressiveLiberals, as they would call themselves, long-headed persons whoknow well enough that social movements are going on, who are notblind to the fact that the world will move with their help orwithout it; these have been the Jingoes of these later days. Idon't mean to say they know what they are doing: politicians, asyou well know, take good care to shut their eyes to everything thatmay happen six months ahead; but what is being done is this: thatthe present system, which always must include national rivalry, ispushing us into a desperate scramble for the markets on more orless equal terms with other nations, because, once more, we havelost that command of them which we once had. Desperate is not toostrong a word. We shall let this impulse to snatch markets carry uswhither it will, whither it must. To-day it is successful burglaryand disgrace, to-morrow it may be mere defeat and disgrace.
Now this is not a digression, although in sayingthis I am nearer to what is generally called politics than I shallbe again. I only want to show you what commercial war comes to whenit has to do with foreign nations, and that even the dullest cansee how mere waste must go with it. That is how we live now withforeign nations, prepared to ruin them without war if possible,with it if necessary, let alone meantime the disgraceful exploitingof savage tribes and barbarous peoples, on whom we force at onceour shoddy wares and our hypocrisy at the cannon's mouth.
Well, surely Socialism can offer you something inthe place of all that. It can; it can offer you peace andfriendship instead of war. We might live utterly without nationalrivalries, acknowledging that while it is best for those who feelthat they naturally form a community under one name to governthemselves, yet that no community in civilization should feel thatit had interests opposed any other, their economical conditionbeing at any rate similar; so that any citizen of one communitycould fall to work and live without disturbance of his life when hewas in a foreign country, and would fit into his place quitenaturally; so that all civilized nations would form one greatcommunity, agreeing together as to the kind and amount ofproduction and distribution needed; working at such and suchproduction where it could be best produced; avoiding waste by allmeans. Please to think of the amount of waste which they wouldavoid, how much such a revolution would add to the wealth of theworld! What creature on earth would be harmed by such a revolution?Nay, would not everybody be the better for it? And what hinders it?I wil