utopia of usurers and other essays-第9部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


compelled　by　iron　economic　laws；　but　in　the　main　by　the　coarse　and
Christless　cynicism　of　other　men。　　But；　of　course；　this　way　of　talking　is
exactly　in　accordance　with　the　fashionable　and　official　version　of　English
history。　　Thus；　you　will　read　that　the　monasteries；　places　where　men　of
the　poorest　origin　could　be　powerful；　grew　corrupt　and　gradually　decayed。
Or　you　will　read　that　the　mediaeval　guilds　of　free　workmen　yielded　at　last
to　an　inevitable　economic　law。　　You　will　read　this；　and　you　will　be
reading　lies。　　They　might　as　well　say　that　Julius　Caesar　gradually
decayed　at　the　foot　of　Pompey's　statue。　　You　might　as　well　say　that
Abraham　Lincoln　yielded　at　last　to　an　inevitable　economic　law。　　The　free
mediaeval　guilds　did　not　decay；　they　were　murdered。　　Solid　men　with　solid
guns　and　halberds；　armed　with　lawful　warrants　from　living　statesmen　broke
up　their　corporations　and　took　away　their　hard　cash　from　them？In　the　same
way　the　people　in　Cradley　Heath　are　no　more　victims　of　a　necessary
economic　law　than　the　people　in　Putumayo。　　They　are　victims　of　a　very
terrible　creature；　of　whose　sins　much　has　been　said　since　the　beginning　of
the　world；　and　of　whom　it　was　said　of　old；　〃Let　us　fall　into　the　hands　of
God；　for　His　mercies　are　great；　but　let　us　not　fall　into　the　hands　of　Man。〃


The　Capitalist　Is　in　the　Dock

Now　it　is　this　offering　of　a　false　economic　excuse　for　the　sweater　that　is
the　danger　in　perpetually　saying　that　the　poor　woman　will　use　the　vote　and
that　the　poor　man　has　not　used　it。　　The　poor　man　is　prevented　from　using
it；　prevented　by　the　rich　man；　and　the　poor　woman　would　be　prevented　in
exactly　the　same　gross　and　stringent　style。　　I　do　not　deny；　of　course；
that　there　is　something　in　the　English　temperament；　and　in　the　heritage　of
the　last　few　centuries　that　makes　the　English　workman　more　tolerant　of
wrong　than　most　foreign　workmen　would　be。　　But　this　only　slightly　modifies
the　main　fact　of　the　moral　responsibility。　　To　take　an　imperfect　parallel；
if　we　said　that　negro　slaves　would　have　rebelled　if　negroes　had　been　more
intelligent；　we　should　be　saying　what　is　reasonable。　　But　if　we　were　to
say　that　it　could　by　any　possibility　be　represented　as　being　the　negro's
fault　that　he　was　at　that　moment　in　America　and　not　in　Africa；　we　should
be　saying　what　is　frankly　unreasonable。　　It　is　every　bit　as　unreasonable
to　say　the　mere　supineness　of　the　English　workmen　has　put　them　in　the
capitalist　slave…yard。　　The　capitalist　has　put　them　in　the　capitalist
slaveyard；　and　very　cunning　smiths　have　hammered　the　chains。　　It　is　just
this　creative　criminality　in　the　authors　of　the　system　that　we　must　not
allow　to　be　slurred　over。　　The　capitalist　is　in　the　dock　to…day；　and　so
far　as　I　at　least　can　prevent　him；　he　shall　not　get　out　of　it。



THE　FRENCH　REVOLUTION　AND　THE　IRISH

It　will　be　long　before　the　poison　of　the　Party　System　is　worked　out　of　the
body　politic。　　Some　of　its　most　indirect　effects　are　the　most　dangerous。
One　that　is　very　dangerous　just　now　is　this：　that　for　most　Englishmen　the
Party　System　falsifies　history；　and　especially　the　history　of　revolutions。
It　falsifies　history　because　it　simplifies　history。　　It　paints　everything
either　Blue　or　Buff　in　the　style　of　its　own　silly　circus　politics：　while　a
real　revolution　has　as　many　colours　as　the　sunriseor　the　end　of　the
world。　　And　if　we　do　not　get　rid　of　this　error　we　shall　make　very　bad
blunders　about　the　real　revolution　which　seems　to　grow　more　and　more
probable；　especially　among　the　Irish。　　And　any　human　familiarity　with
history　will　teach　a　man　this　first　of　all：　that　Party　practically　does
not　exist　in　a　real　revolution。　　It　is　a　game　for　quiet　times。

If　you　take　a　boy　who　has　been　to　one　of　those　big　private　schools　which
are　falsely　called　the　Public　Schools；　and　another　boy　who　has　been　to　one
of　those　large　public　schools　which　are　falsely　called　the　Board　Schools；
you　will　find　some　differences　between　the　two；　chiefly　a　difference　in
the　management　of　the　voice。　　But　you　will　find　they　are　both　English　in　a
special　way；　and　that　their　education　has　been　essentially　the　same。　　They
are　ignorant　on　the　same　subjects。　　They　have　never　heard　of　the　same
plain　facts。　　They　have　been　taught　the　wrong　answer　to　the　same　confusing
question。　　There　is　one　fundamental　element　in　the　attitude　of　the　Eton
master　talking　about　〃playing　the　game；〃　and　the　elementary　teacher
training　gutter…snipes　to　sing；　〃What　is　the　Meaning　of　Empire　Day？〃　　And
the　name　of　that　element　is　〃unhistoric。〃　　It　knows　nothing　really　about
England；　still　less　about　Ireland　or　France；　and；　least　of　all；　of　course；
about　anything　like　the　French　Revolution。


Revolution　by　Snap　Division

Now　what　general　notion　does　the　ordinary　English　boy；　thus　taught　to
utter　one　ignorance　in　one　of　two　accents；　get　and　keep　through　life　about
the　French　Revolution？　　It　is　the　notion　of　the　English　House　of　Commons
with　an　enormous　Radical　majority　on　one　side　of　the　table　and　a　small
Tory　minority　on　the　other；　the　majority　voting　solid　for　a　Republic；　the
minority　voting　solid　for　a　Monarchy；　two　teams　tramping　through　two
lobbies　with　no　difference　between　their　methods　and　ours；　except　that
（owing　to　some　habit　peculiar　to　Gaul）　the　brief　intervals　were　brightened
by　a　riot　or　a　massacre；　instead　of　by　a　whisky　and　soda　and　a　Marconi　tip。
Novels　are　much　more　reliable　than　histories　in　such　matters。　　For
though　an　English　novel　about　France　does　not　tell　the　truth　about　France；
it　does　tell　the　truth　about　England；　and　more　than　half　the　histories
never　tell　the　truth　about　anything。　　And　popular　fiction；　I　think；　bears
witness　to　the　general　English　impression。　　The　French　Revolution　is　a
snap　division　with　an　unusual　turnover　of　votes。　　On　the　one　side　stand　a
king　and　queen　who　are　good　but　weak；　surrounded　by　nobles　with　rapiers
drawn；　some　of　whom　are　good；　many　of　whom　are　wicked；　all　of　whom　are
good…looking。　　Against　these　there　is　a　formless　mob　of　human　beings；
wearing　red　caps　and　seemingly　insane；　who　all　blindly　follow　ruffians　who
are　also　rhetoricians；　some　of　whom　die　repentant　and　others　unrepentant
towards　the　end　of　the　fourth　act。　　The　leaders　of　this　boiling　mass　of
all　men　melted　into　one　are　called　Mirabeau；　Robespierre；　Danton；　Marat；
and　so　on。　　And　it　is　conceded　that　their　united　frenzy　may　have　been
forced　on　them　by　the　evils　of　the　old　regime。

That；　I　think；　is　the　commonest　English　view　of　the　French　Revolution；　and
it　will　not　survive　the　reading　of　two　pages　of　any　real　speech　or　letter
of　the　period。　　These　human　beings　were　human；　varied；　complex　and
inconsistent。　　But　the　rich　Englishman；　ignorant　of　revolutions；　would
hardly　believe　you　if　you　told　him　some　of　the　common　human　subtleties　of
the　case。　　Tell　him　that　Robespierre　threw　the　red　cap　in　the　dirt　in
disgust；　while　the　king　had　worn　it　with　a　broad　grin；　so　to　speak；　tell
him　that　Danton；　the　fierce　founder　of　the　Republic　of　the　Terror；　said
quite　sincerely　to　a　noble；　〃I　am　more　monarchist　than　you；〃　tell　him　that
the　Terror　really　seems　to　have　been　brought　to　an　end　chiefly　by　the
efforts　of　people　who　particularly　wanted　to　go　on　with　itand　he　will
not　believe　these　things。　　He　will　not　believe　them　because　he　has　no
humility；　and　therefore　no　realism。　　He　has　never　been　inside　himself；　and
so　could　never　be　inside　another　man。　　The　truth　is　that　in　the　French
affair　everybody　occupied　an　individual　position。　　Every　man　talked
sincerely；　if　not　because　he　was　sincere；　then　because　he　was　angry。
Robespierre　talked　even　more　about　God　than　about　the　Republic　because　he
cared　even　more　about　God　than　about　the　Republic。　　Danton　talked　even
more　about　France　than　about　the　Republic　because　he　cared　even　more　about
France　than　about　the　Republic。　　Marat　talked　more　about　Humanity　than
either；　because　that　physician　（though　himself　somewhat　needing　a
physician）　really　cared　about　it。　　The　nobles　were　divided；　each　man　from
the　next。　　The　attitude　of　the　king　was　quite　different　from　the　attitude
of　the　queen；　certainly　much　more　different　than　any　differences　between
our　Liberals　and　Tories　for　the　last　twenty　years。　　And　it　will　sadden
_some_　of　my　friends　to　remember　that　it　was　the　king　who　was　the　Liberal
and　the　queen　who　was　the　Tory。　　There　were　not　two　people；　I　think；　in
that　most　practical　crisis　who　stood　in　precisely　the　same　attitude
towards　the　situation。　　And　that　is　why；　between　them；　they　saved　Europe。
It　is　when　you　really　perceive　the　unity　of　mankind　that　you　really
perceive　its　variety。　　It　is　not　a　flippancy；　it　is　a　very　sacred　truth；
to　say　that　when　men　really　understand　that　they　are　brothers　they
instantly　begin　to　fight。


The　Revival　of　Reality

Now　these　things　are　repeating　themselves　with　an　enormous　reality　in　the
Irish　Revolution。　　You　will　not　be　able　to　make　a　Party　System　out　of　the
matter。　　Everybody　is　in　revolt；　therefore　everybody　is　telling　the　truth。
The　Nationalists　will　go　on　caring　most　for　the　nation；　as　Danton　and
the　defenders　of　the　frontier　went　on　caring　most　for　the　nation。　　The
priests　will　go　on　caring　most　for　religion；　as　Robespierre　went　on　caring
most　for　religgion。　　The　Socialists　will　go　on　caring　most　for　the　cure　of
physical　suffering；　as　Marat　went　on　caring　most　for　it。　　It　is　out　of
these　real　differences　that　real　things　can　be　made；　such　as　the　modern
French　democracy。　　For　by　such　tenacity　everyone　sees　at　last　that　there
is　something　in　the　other　person's　position。　　And　those　drilled　in　party
discipline　see　nothing　either　past　or　present。　　And　where　there　is　nothing
there　is　Satan。

For　a　long　time　past　in　our　politics　there　has　not　only　been　no　real
battle；　but　no　real　bargain。　　No　two　men　have　bargained　as　Gladstone　and
Parnell　bargainedeach　knowing　the　other　to　be　a　power。　　But　in　real
revolutions　men　discover　that　no　one　man　can　really　agree　with　another　man
until　he　has　disagreed　with　him。



LIBERALISM：　A　SAMPLE

There　is　a　certain　daily　paper　in　England　towards　which　I　feel　very　much
as　Tom　Pinch　felt　towards　Mr。　Pecksniff　immediately　after　he　had　found　him
out。　　The　war　upon　Dickens　was　part