siderations would apply. They would not apply to the production of manufactured goods meant chiefly for exportation, nor to things partaking more or less of the nature of luxuries.

In any case the promoters and all connected with the trusts and syndicates should reflect on the lines on which they have entered. The formation of them, though the greatest effort of the "promoter's genius, is a direct step on the road to Socialism. The greater the syndicate and the more successful, the greater the invitation to State interference, because it would point out both where the interference of the State was most called for, and where the management of the State would be most certain of success. Therefore, so far as the Syndicate conquers and occupies, let it be merciful, let it not be too anxious for high dividends, or the State, a still stronger Corporate Person, may follow and supplant it; in which way it is possible that a certain limited portion of the Collectivists' programme may be realized, though for reasons urged elsewhere the whole is impossible.

In the meantime the fear of an early syndicate conquest and overrunning of the field of industry may come over us on too slight grounds. It is as yet chiefly in breweries, distilleries, and bakeries, or industries in which there is a possibility of something like a local monopoly, and which have already been more or less of a monopoly or a tacit combination, and where the capital required, though large, is mostly under a million, that the syndicate has succeeded. Where it has tried larger enterprise, as in the American Sugar

Trust or the Copper Syndicate, it has come to trouble. There is no possibility, for many a year, of a syndicate embracing one of our staple industries where the capital required would be of colossal dimensions, and where the large and prosperous firms and companies would not join, having already more profits than they could hope to gain by so doing; so that, although the general direction in which the syndicate and the union of companies tends is clear, yet the time required before there could be unified production and monopoly in any given large national industry, the cotton for example, is indefinitely remote. The financier and former of the syndicate may therefore still console himself that the Socialist goal of universal State occupation is far off, while in the meantime the syndicate is at once an economic development as well as the product of his genius, for which, like other inventors, he deserves something, and for which for some time to come he will get something considerable.

235

CHAPTER VIII.

IN THE SOCIALIST STATE (concluded).

UNPRODUCTIVE LABOURERS, THE CHURCH, AND

THE GOVERNMENT.

I.

WE have seen that the Collectivists have after all no principle of distribution in the sphere of material production; that even in that sphere wages would have to be unequal under penalty of general poverty, and that the inequality would have to be arbitrarily determined, instead of being as now mainly due to individual efforts, good and bad, for which there is large scope. have now to consider the great amount and variety of labour not connected directly or indirectly with material production; to inquire how Socialism would deal with it, and how reward the labourers.

We

The labour in question, generally described as unproductive, is not only very various, but some of it is extremely important. In one form or other it is necessary; it exists in every civilized society, and, though in less developed forms, the various types of labourers have mostly existed in all past civilizations.

Some of the labour is, and always has been, of the co-operative kind, as that of the military service, which has always been highly organized. Then

there is the civil service, which, though not largely admitting co-operative labour, is already organized and officered by the State. So to a considerable extent is the educational service as respects primary education, but not, in England at least, as respects either intermediate or university education.

More of the outstanding unproductive labourers could, it is clear, be enrolled under the service of the State, or the County, or the Municipality. The cabman, the railway porter, the tramcar man, would probably work as well if they were paid by the State or municipality, as at present, while no individuals would be making a profit out of them, though as regards the whole class of domestic servants, the "house-slaves" of the Collectivists, however their social status might be elevated, it does not appear what great gain to the general convenience would result by making them all State functionaries. Certainly the services of some of them will always be necessary, whether they will be monopolized by one private family or not. A physician will require a coachman to drive him round to his patients; cooks and waiters must be at restaurants; and-unless we live in large buildings -in each house there must be a private cook and some one to bring the breakfast, make our beds, and dust our rooms. Their status may be raised, their wages, perhaps, increased; some of them will be always necessary; and the question is, would it not be more to the general convenience that they should sell their services how and to whom they pleased, as now? The State might indeed pay to a coachman a fixed salary, to be repaid by the hirers

of the coach and service, instead of allowing him to offer his services by the year to a doctor in good practice, or a high official in the public service. It might desire to discountenance such luxuries as private carriages and livery servants, coachmen and footmen, or it might wish, with the Collectivists, to prevent possible carriage-owners or livery-stable keepers from making profit out of coachmen, cab-drivers, and grooms, by itself becoming the sole owner of carriages to be let out for hire; but the restriction on individual freedom would be great, and the prohibition in certain cases impossible to carry out.

In fact, the suppression of domestic servants, however well intended by the Socialists in their interest, would not only be undesired by the class, but would imply a complete domestic revolution, the most distasteful of all kinds of revolution, and the most difficult to effect, because touching at the inner private life and at traditional habits and feelings. The abolition of some species of servants and the turning of the remainder into State functionaries, would mean the abolition of the private residence, or would necessitate, if not the common table, at least living in large buildings or hotels, where the lately enfranchised servants must do essentially the same things as before for a payment of fixed fees to go to the State. The separate residence implies servants (who are no more house-slaves than that they contract to do certain understood classes of acts at the bidding of another). Some servants, at least, in the house we must have, as it would be very incommodious to have to send frequently for officials to help us. The nurse