Home |
Texts |
Next Chapter |
|---|
|
Typos — p. 75: Marchmont [= Marchamont]; p. 75: (1620–1678 [= (1620–1678)]; p. 75: Hobbe's [= Hobbes']
- p. 74 - X Left-Wing English Utopia England's historical record reveals her as having been the hotbed of Liberalism in Europe. Three times — in 1527, 1471 and 1649 — she set Europe the example of Regicide; ever since the late seventeenth century she has flaunted the mirage of Constitutional Monarchy before Europe's gaze and may be said to have started the vogue for this bogus form of Kingship; whilst as I hope to show, from the early sixteenth century, she has had no need of a German Marx or a Russian Lenin to prompt her in propounding the most subversive principles of Radicalism and Communism. Never having had any experience of a true Aristocracy, or understood what such a regimen meant and how it could be secured; and never, until the day before yesterday having appreciated the indispensability of a Tone Setting élite if the nation's way or life is to be kept decent and dignified, England has up to the present even failed to recognise the essential functions of a Second Chamber within the framework of her pet political improvisation — Limited Monarchy. For as early as 1648, in a pamphlet sometimes attributed to Winstanley, it is argued that the restitution of the People's Rights will be achieved only by putting down all "tyrants" who "are called Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Barons, Lords etc." (Light Shining in Buckinghamshire). As already indicated, the besetting sin of the Liberal philosophers has been that they have always lacked psychological insight, and built their house upon the sand of a mistaken view of humanity in the mass. To this day, despite all that the New Psychology, general experience, and bitter fruits of Liberal errors have taught us, people of influence whose opinions have weight may still be found who abide by the superstition indispensable to democratic theory that Man is born good. Thus, a popular author like
Wholly ignored is Freud's caution that young humanity, exclusively under the empire of the Pleasure Principle, is unfit for society until it has undergone the rigid discipline of the Reality Principle. Wholly ignored too is the denial of the alleged "innocence" of children by such rare Englishmen as Samuel Johnson, Browning and Herbert Spencer, and by the more enlightened of French psychologists. Even more surprising is the complete disregard of the Church's mystical anticipation of Freud — its doctrine that we are born in Sin and can achieve righteousness only by an act of Grace. In this respect, Modern Thought with its democratic bias in favour of human goodness, is inferior to that of the Middle Ages; and, according to Phyllis Doyle, the deterioration occurred in Hobbe's lifetime; for whereas in his youth belief in Man's native iniquity was the mark of orthodoxy, in his old age it was "the stigma of atheism." (A History of Political Thought, Chap. IX). How right therefore is F. L. Lucas in maintaining that "The Age of Reason owed some of its most fatal mistakes to bad psychology." Fascinating, however, is the way the light of truth sometimes pierces the fog of Liberal sophistry owing to the inconsistencies of some of its pundits. Rousseau, as we have seen, gave us two instances of this. But even more astonishing is Harold Laski's admission equally damaging to the democratic myth. "Men", he said, "prefer sacrifice by others to the surrender of their own desires." (Communism, Chap. IV, 6). A political philosophy postulating the desiderata; Freedom, Equality, the Right of Private Judgment and Mob-Voting, coup-
As early as Wycliffe's day, as we have seen, Property Rights were already being questioned. But 200 years later England was ringing with the clamour of agitators who to-day would be welcomed with open arms in Moscow's Red Square. We have seen that no material differences distinguish Liberalism (Locke's altitude) with us doctrine of the unconditional disponibility of property, from the belief that the best administrator of all wealth is the impersonal State; for both views imply a vulgar disregard of the Sanctity of Private Property, it is therefore hardly surprising that the early Liberals, besides believing as Locke ultimately did in "the inherent value of the majority's judgment", should also have professed their misunderstanding of the Sanctity of Private Property by demanding its abolition. Men like Hartlib, Chamberlen, W. Walwyn, and especially Winstanley, were all frankly communistic. Chamberlen recommended the "nationalisation of all Crown and Church possessions." Walwyn maintained that things would "never be well till all things were common", and in the sophisticated style later affected by G. B. Shaw, he argued that when once Communism had abolished property, "there would be no need of government, for there would be no thieves or criminals." I always deplore that Bernard Shaw did not live to see the Welfare State in operation. He would have had his own shallowness brought home to him by the enormous increase in crime of all kinds which has accompanied the practical evanescence of poverty. Winstanley, who published his Law of Freedom in a Platform in 1652, even anticipated the seductively plausible Marxian slogan: "From each according to his powers and to each according to his needs," and as the populace had supported Parliament in destroying the Oppressor he said, "The spoils should be equally divided between those who went to war and those who stayed at home and paid for them." (See for these and similar facts, Dr. G. P. Gooch's English Democratic Ideals in the 17th Century, Chap. VII, 2). Dr. Gooch points out that Locke "provided the theoretic basis of Socialism" but the ground plan of a frankly Socialistic
Thus we see that neither Russia nor Marx has anything to teach England in the nature of political utopianism of a Leftish brand. And modern England shows us whither these wild illusions have led. Anarchy is rampant. Utter chaos is only round the corner. Despite the affluence spread throughout all classes, crime increases by leaps and bounds, and criminal propensities are given full play from an early age. Diabolical cruelly to animals, wanton destruction of public property, and dangerous interference with railway signals and lines, have become the habitual pastimes of the children; but without arousing in the adult masses any idea of mending their courses, improving their home discipline, or of modifying their views about the alleged native goodness of Man. With Representative Democracy established on a Party basis, so that it has become the business of an officially remunerated Opposition leader to thwart and oppose every measure of the Party in power, no matter how urgently such a measure may be needed or how wise its provisions may be, we have a situation in which no long-term policy of any far-reaching value has the remotest chance of coming into effect. For, as all political Parties compete for Power and have unremittingly to woo the ignorant, self-seeking multitude of Voters, no Party dares to propose any measure likely to give its opponents the opportunity of fomenting indignation against it; with the result that, at the next General Election, it might be unsaddled. This means that measures too wise and, in their provisions, too profound to be understood and appreciated by the masses, or too deficient in governmental largesse for the mob, stand little chance of being proposed or adopted. Thus, although people often deny that a true Democracy exists in England, no one could deny that to-day we are enjoying the fullest benefits of an ochlocratic tyranny from which no popular insurrection can possibly release us. For the ultimate arbiter of every general policy, the final judge of every particular measure, is the common populace, in whom the Power of making and unmaking Governments ultimately resides, and whose intellectual, educational and characterological limitations set the bounds to every legislative proposal a government may advance.
Hard work, frugality and probity, although not extinct, are moribund. Self-indulgence, vain ostentation and hedonism are the fashion, and the cultivation of these propensities starts in infancy. Emotion is the presiding influence in every political conference and in the choice of every course of action. Hence the crowd and alas! too often their leaders as well, habitually mistake a lump in their throats for a thought. Whilst on the one hand, vandalism and violence prevail among the youth of the nation, on the other one hears of a High Court judge who, in acquitting a girl who was proved to be an accomplice in a grossly criminal act, addressed her twice as "my dear" and appealed to her in the dulcet tones of a parson preparing a flapper for her first communion. And as the educated minority among the female voting masses are still too acutely conscious of the famous fight their sex waged for the Suffrage to dream of relinquishing the democratic superstition. Liberalism and all its institutional creations are so firmly established that nothing except total havoc is likely to expose its folly to the nation. |
Home |
Texts |
Next Chapter |
|---|