💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › leo-tolstoy-some-social-remedies.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:16:25. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Some Social Remedies
Author: Leo Tolstoy
Date: 1900
Language: en
Topics: socialism, the State, anarchy, Georgism, Land, communism, Communal living
Source: Retrieved on 2nd November 2021 from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pamphlets_(Tolstoy)/Some_Social_Remedies

Leo Tolstoy

Some Social Remedies

On Socialism, State and Christian

(From the Private MS. Diary)

“Looking Backward” is excellent. One thing is bad, namely, the

Socialist, Marxian idea that if one does wrong for a very long time,

good will ensue of its own accord. “Capital is accumulated in the hands

of a few; it will end by being held by one. All trades-unions will be

also united into one. There are capital and labour,—divided. Authority

or revolution will unite them, and all will be well.” The chief point is

that nothing in our civilisation will diminish, nothing recede; there

will be the same mansions, the same gastronomic dinners, sweets, wines,

carriages, horses,—only everything will be accessible to all.

It is incomprehensible that they do not see this to be impossible. Take

for instance the luxuries of the house of Yasnaia Poliana, and divide

them among the peasants. It can’t be done. They would be of no use to

them. Luxury must be given up. Nothing will do so long as violence,

capital, and invention are directed towards that which is unnecessary.

And in order to get at what is necessary for the masses, everything must

be tested.

But the chief thing is that we must be ready to renounce all the

improvements of our civilisation, rather than allow those cruel

inequalities which constitute our scourge. If I really love my brother,

then I shall not hesitate to deprive myself of a drawing-room, in order

to shelter him when he is homeless. As it is, we say that we wish to

shelter our brother, but only on condition that our drawing-rooms remain

free for receptions. We must decide whom we will serve—God or mammon. To

serve both is impossible. If we are to serve God, we must be prepared to

give up luxury and civilisation; being ready to introduce them again

tomorrow, but only for the common and equal use of all.

.⁠.⁠.⁠.⁠.

The most profitable social arrangement (economic and otherwise) is one

in which each thinks of the good of all, and devotes himself

unreservedly to the service of that welfare. If all were so disposed,

each would derive the greatest possible amount of good.

The most unprofitable grouping of people (economically and otherwise) is

that in which each works for himself only, depends and provides for

himself only. If this were universally the case, if there were not at

least family groups in which people work for one another, I do not think

men could live.

However, people have not this yearning for the welfare of others; on the

contrary, each is striving for his own welfare, to the detriment of

others. But this state of things is so unprofitable that men speedily

grow weak in the struggle. And now, by the very nature of things, it

occurs that one man overpowers others and makes them serve him. And the

result is a more profitable labour of men instead of the unprofitable

individual one.

But in such associations of men there appear inequality and oppression.

And therefore people are making attempts at equalisation (such as the

attempts at cooperations, communes) and at the liberation of men (such

as political rights). Equalisation always leads to disadvantage of the

work done. In order to equalise the remuneration, the best workman is

brought down to the level of the worst; things in use are divided in

such a manner that no one may have more, or better, than another, as in

the partition of land; and this is why the divisions of land are being

made smaller and smaller, a practice disadvantageous to all. Liberation

from oppression by political rights is leading to even greater

excitement and ill-will. Thus attempts at equalisation and deliverance

from oppression are made, though without success; while the unification,

the subjugation of ever greater and greater numbers of men by one is

always increasing. The greater the centralisation of labour the more

profitable it is, but also the more striking and revolting is the

inequality.

What, then, is to be done? Individual labour is unprofitable;

centralised labour is more profitable, but the inequality and oppression

are terrible.

Socialists wish to remove inequality and oppression by assigning all

capital to the nation, to humanity, so that the centralised unit will

become humanity itself. But, in the first place, not only humanity, but

even nations do not as yet admit the necessity for this, and until they

do, this system cannot be adopted by all humanity; secondly, among men

striving each for his own welfare, it would be impossible to find men

sufficiently disinterested to manage the capital of humanity without

taking advantage of their power—men who would not again introduce into

the world inequality and oppression.

And so humanity stands unavoidably face to face with this dilemma:

either the forward movement attained by the centralisation of labour

must be renounced,—there must even be retrogression rather than an

infringement of equality or allowance of oppression,—or else it should

be boldly admitted that inequality and oppression must exist, that “when

wood is chopped, splinters will fly,” that there must be victims, and

that struggle is the law of humanity. And this view is, in fact, adopted

and supported by certain people. But, side by side with it, there

resounds ever louder and louder the protests of the dispossessed, the

moans of the oppressed and the voices of the indignant raised in the

name of the ideal of Christ, of truth and good; which ideal is

acknowledged by our society only officially.

But any child can see that the greatest advantage would result to all if

everyone were to interest himself in the common cause, and therefore to

be provided for as a member of the whole. As, however, this is not the

practice, as it is impossible to enter into the soul of everyone and

control it, and as to persuade everybody is also impossible, or would

take infinitely long, there remains but one other course: to assist the

centralisation of labour, resulting from the subjugation of the many by

the few, and at the same time to conceal from the dispossessed their

inequality with the fortunate, to ward off their attacks, and to help

and afford charity to the oppressed. And this is being done; but the

concentration of capital increases more and more, and the inequality and

oppression grow ever more cruel. And side by side with this,

enlightenment becomes more general and the inequality and the cruelty of

oppression more evident both to oppressed and oppressors. Further

movement in this direction is becoming impossible; so those who think

little, who do not look to the logical conclusion, propose imaginary

remedies, consisting in the education of men in the consciousness of the

necessity of co-operation for the sake of greater advantage. This is

absurd. If the aim be great advantage, then everyone will get this

advantage for himself in the capitalistic organisations. And therefore

nothing except talk results from these attempts.

The organisation most profitable for all will be attained not while

everyone’s aim is profit, material welfare, but only when the aim of all

is that welfare which is independent of earthly well-being—when everyone

will say from his heart, “Blessed are the poor; blessed are those that

weep, those who are persecuted. Only when everyone seeks, not material

but spiritual welfare, which always coincides with sacrifice, is

verified by sacrifice—only then will result the greatest welfare for

all.

Take this simple illustration: People live together; if they tidy up

regularly, clean up after themselves, everyone has to do very little in

order to preserve the general cleanliness. But everyone is accustomed to

have things tidied and cleaned up after him; what, then, has he to do

who wishes to keep the place clean? He must work for all, must be

immersed in dirt. And if he will not do this, will work only for

himself, he will not attain his aim. Of course it would be easier to

order all the others; but there is no one who can so order. There

remains but one course—oneself to work for others.

And, indeed, in a world where all are living for themselves, to begin to

live for others a little is impossible; one must give oneself up

entirely. And it is just this that the conscience, enlightened by

Christ, demands. ⁠⁠⁠⁠* Why is it that the kingdom of God upon earth can be

realised neither by means of the existing governmental violence nor by a

revolution and State Socialism, nor yet by those means preached by

Christian Socialists: propaganda and the gradually increasing

consciousness of men that it will be advantageous?

So long as Man’s aim is the welfare of the personal life, no one can

check himself in this strife for his welfare at the point where he gets

his just share,—and at such demands from men which admit of the

well-being of all. No one can do this, firstly, because it is impossible

to find the point of perfect justice in these requests,—men will always

exaggerate their demands; and secondly, because, even were it possible

to find the measure of the just demands, man cannot put forward the

demand for that which is only just, for he will never get it, but

infinitely less. The demands of those around him being regulated, not by

justice, but by personal profit, it is evident that as a matter of fact

the possession of material welfare will be attained by every separate

individual rather through competition and struggle (as indeed is at

present the case) than by just demands.

In order to attain justice, while people are striving after personal

welfare, it would be necessary to have people able to define the measure

of worldly goods which should in justice fall to the share of each; and

also people with power to prevent men profiting by more than their just

share. There are, and always have been, men who have undertaken both

these duties; they are our rulers. But up to the present time neither in

monarchies nor in republics have there been found men who, in defining

the measure of goods and distributing them amongst men, have not

transgressed this measure for themselves and their assistants, and thus

spoilt the work they were called to, and undertook to do. So that this

means is already recognised by all to be unsatisfactory. And now some

people say that it is necessary to abolish these governments and to

establish governments of another kind, chiefly for the purpose of

superintending economic affairs,—which governments, acknowledging that

all capital and land are common property, will administer the labour of

men and distribute earthly welfare, according to their labour,—or, as

some say, according to their needs.

All attempts at this kind of organisation, hitherto made, have been

unsuccessful. But even without such experiments, one can confidently

assert that, with men striving after personal welfare, such an

organisation cannot be realised, because those men—very many of them—who

will superintend economic affairs, will be men with strivings after

personal welfare, and will have to deal with similar men, and therefore

in organising and maintaining the new economic order, they will

inevitably prosecute their own personal advantage as much as the former

administrators, and will thus destroy the meaning of the very work they

are called to do.

Some will say, “Choose men who are wise and pure.” But none but the wise

and pure can choose the wise and pure. And if all men were wise and

pure, there would be no need of any organisation, consequently the

impossibility of that which the revolutionary Socialists profess is felt

by all, even by themselves; and that is why it is out of date and has no

success.

And here we come to the third teaching—that of Christian Socialism,

which has resource to propaganda aiming at influencing the consciousness

of men. But the success of this teaching is evidently possible only when

all men will have the same clear consciousness of the advantages of

community of labour, and when this consciousness will have

simultaneously developed in all. But as it is evident that neither the

one nor the other can take place, the economic organisation founded, not

on competition and struggle, but on community of interest cannot be

realised.

Therefore there cannot be a better organisation than the present one, so

long as the aim of man is personal welfare.

The error of those who preach Christian Socialism consists in this, that

they draw from the Gospels only that practical conclusion of general

welfare which is not the aim pointed out by the Gospels, but only the

verification of the correctness of the means. The Gospels teach the way

of life, and by advancing on this way it happens that material welfare

is reached. It is indeed attained, but it is not the aim. If the aim of

the gospel teaching were limited to the attainment of material welfare,

then this material welfare would not be attained.

The aim is higher and more distant. The aim of this teaching is not

dependent on material welfare; it is the salvation of the soul, i.e of

that divine element which has been enclosed in man. This salvation is

attained by renouncing personal life and therefore, also, material

well-being, and by striving after the welfare of one’s neighbours—by

love. And it is only by this endeavour that men will, incidentally,

attain the greatest welfare of all—the kingdom of God upon earth.

By striving after personal welfare, neither personal nor general welfare

is attained. By striving after self-forgetfulness, both personal and

general Welfare are attained. ⁠⁠⁠⁠* Theoretically, three organisations of

human society are possible. The first is this: people—the best people,

God’s—will give such a law to men as will ensure the greatest happiness

to mankind, and the authorities will enforce the fulfilment of this law.

This has been tried; but has resulted in the authorities, those who

administered the law, abusing their power and infringing the law, not

they only but also their co-operators, who are many. Then appeared a

second scheme, “Laisser faire, laisser passer,” the idea being that

there is no need of authorities, but that by all men striving each for

his own welfare, justice will be realised. But this does not succeed for

two reasons. Firstly, because authority is not abolished, and people

think it cannot be abolished because oppression would still continue,

for the government would refuse to use its authority to arrest the

robber, whereas the robber would not desist. While there are authorities

the condition of men fighting for welfare is unequal, not only because

some are stronger than others, but also because men make use of

authority to help them in the struggle. Secondly, because in the

incessant struggle of all, each for his own welfare, the slightest

advantage of one gives him a multiplied advantage, and inequality must

inevitably result. There still remains a third theory, that men will

come to understand that it is profitable to live for the welfare of

others, and that all will strive after this. And it is just this that

the Christian faith furnishes. In the first place, to the realisation of

this theory there can be no external obstacles; whether or not there

exist government, capital, etc., and the whole present order of things,

the object would be attained in the event of such a development of men’s

conception of life. Secondly, one need expect no special term for the

commencement of the realisation, for every single individual who has

attained this life conception, and gives himself up to the welfare of

others, is already conducing to that welfare. And thirdly, this has been

going on ever since we have known anything about the life of men. ⁠⁠⁠⁠*

Socialists say, “It is not necessary for us who enjoy the blessings of

culture and civilisation to be deprived of these blessings, and to

descend to the level of the rough crowd, but the men who are now

deprived of material good must be raised to our level, and made

participators in the blessings of culture and civilisation. The means

for accomplishing this is science. Science teaches us to conquer nature;

it is able infinitely to increase the productiveness of nature; it may

by electricity avail itself of the power of the Niagara Falls, of

rivers, of winds. The sun will work. And there will be plenty of

everything for everybody. At present only a small fraction of mankind,

the one in power, profits by the blessings of civilisation; whereas the

rest is deprived of them. Increase the welfare, and then it will suffice

for all.” But the fact is that those in power have long been consuming

not what they need, but what they do not need; all they can get.

Therefore, however much advantages may increase, those who are at the

top will appropriate them for themselves.

One cannot consume more than a certain quantity of necessaries, but to

luxury there is no limit. Thousands of bushels of bread may be used for

horses and dogs; millions of acres of land turned into parks, and so on,

as is now the case. So that no increase of productiveness and wealth

will augment one little the welfare of the lower classes, so long as the

upper classes have the power and the desire to spend the surplus wealth

on luxury. On the contrary, the increase of productiveness, the greater

mastery of the forces of nature, only gives greater power to the upper

classes, to those in authority,—power to keep this authority over the

lower working classes.

And every attempt on the part of the lower classes to make the rich

divide with them,—revolutions, strikes,—cause strife, and the strife—a

useless waste of wealth. “Better let no one have it, if I cannot,’ say

the contending parties.

The conquest of nature and the increased production of material wealth

in order that it may overflow the world, so that every one may have his

share, is as unwise a proceeding as would be to increase the quantity of

wood thrown into a stove, in order to increase the warmth of a house in

which the stoves have no dampers. However much you may augment the fire,

the cold air becoming heated will rise, and fresh cold air will at once

take its place; and therefore no equal distribution of warmth in the

house will be attained. This will continue as long as there is access

for the cold air and an outlet for the hot.

Of the three remedies which have so far been invented, it is difficult

to say which is the most foolish,—so foolish are they all.

The first remedy, that of the revolutionist, consists in the abolition

of the upper classes, by whom all the wealth is consumed. This is the

same as if a man were to break the chimney through which the heat is

disappearing, supposing that when there is no chimney the heat will not

pass away. But the heat will pass out through the hole left by the

chimney, as it did through the chimney itself, if the current be the

same. In the same way wealth will all go to the men in authority, as

long as authority exists.

Another remedy, at present being put into practice by Wilhelm II., is,

without changing the existing order, to take from the upper classes, who

possess the wealth and power, a small portion of this wealth and throw

it into the bottomless abyss of poverty; as if one were to arrange on

the top of the chimney, through which the heat is passing, fans, and to

fan the heat, trying to drive it down to the cold layers. An occupation

obviously difficult and useless, because, while the heat ascends from

below, however much one may drive it down (and one cannot drive down

much), it will at once again rise up and all the exertion will be

wasted.

The third, and last, remedy is at present preached especially in

America. It consists in replacing the competitive and individualistic

basis of life by a communistic principle, by a principle of

associations, co-operations. This remedy, as stated in Dawn and the

Nationalist, consists in preaching co-operation by word and deed, in

inculcating and explaining to men that competition, individualism, and

strife are destroying much strength and consequently wealth, and that

far greater advantage is derived from the co-operative principle, i.e.

every one working for the common good, and receiving afterwards his

share of the common wealth,—that this will prove more advantageous for

everybody. All this is excellent, but the worst of it is that, to begin

with, no one knows what each man’s share will be when all is divided

equally; and above all, whatever his share may be, it will appear

insufficient for their welfare to men living as they do at present. “All

will be well off, and you will enjoy the same as the others.”—“But I

don’t want to live like all the rest, I want to live better. I have

always lived better than others and am used to it.”—“And as for me I

have long lived worse than all, and now want to live just as others have

lived.” This remedy is the worst of all, because it supposes that during

the existing upward current, i.e. the motive of striving after the best,

it is possible to persuade the particles of air not to rise in

proportion to the heat.

The one means is to reveal to men their true welfare, and to show them

that wealth not only is not a blessing, but even diverts men from

welfare, by hiding from them their true welfare.

There is only one means, and that is to stop up the hole of worldly

desire. This alone would give equally distributed heat. And this is

exactly the opposite of what the Socialists say and do,—trying to

augment production, and therefore the general mass of wealth.

⁠⁠⁠⁠*

Gronlund is arguing with Spencer and all those who deny the need of

government, or see its destination only in the security of the

individual. Gronlund considers that the foundation of morality lies in

association. As a model, or rather as an embryo, of a real socialistic

government, he brings forward trades-unions, which, by coercing the

individual, by inducing him to sacrifice his personal interests,

subordinate him to the service of the common cause.

This, I think, is not true. He says that the government organises

labour. That would be well; but he forgets that governments are always

coercing and exploiting labour under the pretext of defence. How much

more would it then exploit labour under the pretext of organising it? It

would indeed be well if government were to organise labour, but to do

that it must be disinterested, saintly. But where are they, these saints

It is true that individualism, as they call it, meaning by this the

ideal of individual welfare for each separate man, is a most pernicious

principle ; but the principle of the welfare of many people together is

equally pernicious. Only its perniciousness is not at once evident.

The attainment of that co-operation—social communism,—in place of

individualism, will not result from organisation. We shall never guess

what will be the organisation of the future; we will discover it only by

everyone following the unperverted impulse of heart, conscience, reason,

faith; the law of life, call it what you will.

Bees and ants live socially, not because they know what organisation is

most advantageous for them and follow it,—they have no idea of

expediency, harmony, the wisdom of the hive or ant hill, as they appear

to us, but because they give themselves up to what we call the instinct

inherent in them, they submit, not philosophising cunningly, but

straightforwardly to their law of life. I can imagine that if bees, in

addition to their instinct, as we call it, in addition to the

consciousness of their law, were able to invent the best organisation of

their social life, they would invent such a life that they would perish.

In this tendency of the law of life there is something less and

something more than reasoning. And it alone leads to that way of truth,

which is the right one for man and for humanity.

On Anarchy

(From the Private MS. Diary)

The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing

order, and in the assertion that, without authority, there could not be

worse violence than that of authority under existing conditions. They

are mistaken only in thinking that Anarchy can be instituted by a

revolution. “To establish Anarchy.” “Anarchy will be instituted.” But it

will be instituted only by there being more and more people who do not

require protection from governmental power, and by there being more and

more people who will be ashamed of applying this power.

“The capitalistic organisation will pass into the hands of workers, and

then there will be no more oppression of these workers, and no unequal

distribution of earnings.”

“But who will establish the works; who will administer them?”

“It will go on of its own accord; the workmen themselves will arrange

everything.”

“But the capitalistic organisation was established just because, for

every practical affair, there is need for administrators furnished with

power. If there be work there will be leadership, administrators with

power. And when there is power there will be abuse of it—the very thing

against which you are now striving.”

.⁠.⁠.⁠.⁠.

To the question, how to be without a State, without courts, armies, so

on, an answer cannot be given, because the question is badly formulated.

The problem is not how to arrange a State after the pattern of to-day,

or after a new pattern. Neither I, nor any of us, is appointed to settle

that question.

But, though voluntarily, yet inevitably must we answer the question. How

shall I act in face of the problem which ever arises before me? Am I to

submit my conscience to the acts taking place around me, am I to

proclaim myself in agreement with the government, which hangs erring

men, sends soldiers to murder, demoralises nations with opium and

spirits, and so on, or am I to submit my actions to conscience, i.e. not

participate in government, the actions of which are contrary to my

reason?

What will be the outcome of this, what kind of a government there will

be,—of all this I know nothing; not that I don’t wish to know; but that

I cannot. I only know that nothing evil can result from my following the

higher guidance of wisdom and love, or wise love, which is implanted in

me; just as nothing evil comes of the bee following the instinct

implanted in her, and flying out of the hive with the swarm, we should

say, to ruin. But, I repeat, I do not wish to and cannot judge about

this.

In this precisely consists the power of Christ’s teaching and that not

because, Christ is God or a great man, but because His teaching is

irrefutable. The merit of His teaching consists in the fact that it

transferred the matter from the domain of eternal doubt and conjecture

on to the ground of certainty. “Thou art a man, a being rational and

kind, and thou knowest that these qualities are the highest in thee;

and, besides, thou knowest that to-day or to-morrow thou wilt die,

disappear. If there be a God, then thou wilt go to Him, and He will ask

of thee an account of thy actions, whether thou hast acted in accordance

with His law, or, at least, with the higher qualities implanted in thee.

If there be no God, thou regardest reason and love as the highest

qualities, and must submit to them thy other inclinations, and not let

them submit to thy animal nature—to the cares about the commodities of

life, to the fear of annoyance, and material calamities.”

The question is not, I repeat, which community will be the more secure,

the better,—the one which is defended by arms, cannons, gallows, or the

one that is not so safeguarded. But there is only one question for a

man, and one it is impossible to evade: “Wilt thou, a rational and good

being, having for a moment appeared in this world, and at any moment

liable to disappear,—wilt thou take part in the murder of erring men or

men of a different race, wilt thou participate in the exterminating of

whole nations of so-called savages, wilt thou participate in the

artificial deterioration of generations of men by means of opium and

spirits for the sake of profit, wilt thou participate in all these

actions, or even be in agreement with those who permit them, or wilt

thou not?”

And there can be but one answer to this question for those to whom it

has presented itself. As to what the outcome will be of it I don’t know,

because it is not given me to know. But what should be done I do

unmistakably know.

And if you ask: “What will happen?” Then I reply that good will

certainly happen; because, acting in the way indicated by reason and

love, I am acting in accordance with the highest law known to me.

.⁠.⁠.⁠.⁠.

The situation of the majority of men, enlightened by true brotherly

enlightenment, at present crushed by the deceit and cunning of usurpers,

who are forcing them to ruin their own lives—this situation is terrible,

and appears hopeless.

Only two issues present themselves, and both are closed. One is to

destroy violence by violence, by terrorism, dynamite bombs, and daggers,

as Nihilist and Anarchists have attempted to do, to destroy this

conspiracy of governments against nations, from without; the other is to

come to an agreement with the government, making concessions to it,

participating in it, in order gradually to disentangle the net which is

binding the people, and to set them free. Both these issues are closed.

Dynamite and the dagger, as experience has already shown, only cause

reaction, and destroy the most valuable power, the only one at our

command, that of opinion.

The other issue is closed, because governments have already learnt how

far they may allow the participation of men wishing to reform them. They

admit only that which does not infringe, which is non-essential; and

they are very sensitive concerning things harmful to them,—sensitive

because the matter concerns their own existence. They admit men who do

not share their views, and who desire reform, not only in order to

satisfy the demands of these men, but also in their own interest, in

that of the government. These men are dangerous to the governments if

they remain outside them and revolt against them,—opposing to the

governments the only effective instrument the governments possess—public

opinion; they must therefore render these men harmless, attracting them

by means of concessions, in order to render them innocuous (like

cultivated microbes), and then make them serve the aims of the

governments, i.e. oppress and exploit the masses.

Both these issues being firmly closed and impregnable, what remains to

be done?

To utilise violence is impossible; it would only cause reaction. To join

the ranks of the government is also impossible—one would only become its

instrument. One course, therefore, remains—to fight the government by

means of thought, speech, actions, life, neither yielding to government

nor joining its ranks and thereby increasing its power.

This alone is needed, will certainly be successful.

And this is the will of God, the teaching of Christ.

.⁠.⁠.⁠.⁠.

We have now reached a stage when a man merely good and rational cannot

participate in a State, i.e. in England (not to speak of our Russia),

cannot be in agreement with landlordism, exploitation by manufacturers,

capitalists, with the system in India, flogging, the opium trade, with

the extermination of whole races in Africa, with wars and preparations

for wars.

The ground upon which man says, “I don’t know what the government is,

nor why it exists, and I don’t want to know; but I do know that I cannot

live contrary to my conscience,” this point of view is invincible, and

to it the men of our time must adhere, in order to make life-progress.

“I know what conscience dictates to me; as to you men, occupied with the

State, organise the State as best you may, so that it correspond to the

demands of the conscience of the men of our time.”

But men are abandoning this impregnable position, taking up the view of

reforming, ameliorating the State functions; and, by so doing, they are

losing their points of support, acknowledging the necessity for the

State, and thus abandoning their unassailable position.

.⁠.⁠.⁠.⁠.

Three Methods of Reform

(From the Private MS. Diary)

There are three means of alleviating the condition of the labourers and

of setting up brotherhood among men.

Not to make people work for you; neither directly nor indirectly to

demand work of them; not to need such articles as demand extra

labour,—all objects of luxury.

To do for oneself and, if possible, for others also that work which is

tedious and unpleasant.

Not in reality a means, but the result and application of the second,

to study the laws of nature and invent processes for the alleviation of

labour—machinery, steam, electricity. One will invent what is really

needed, and nothing superfluous, only when one invents in order to

lighten one’s own labour, or at least labour which one has oneself

experienced.

But at present men are engaged in applying only the third means, and

even that incorrectly, for they keep aloof from the second, and not only

are they unwilling to employ the first and second means, but they do not

wish even to hear of them.

There can be only one permanent revolution—a moral one; the regeneration

of the inner man.

How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take

place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in

our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of

changing himself.

People abolished slavery and the right of owning slaves, but they

continued changing their linen unnecessarily, and living in ten rooms

and having five courses at dinner, and carriages, etc. And yet all these

things could not be if there were no slaves. This is perfectly clear,

and yet nobody can see it.

Two Letters on Henry George and the Land Question.

(The first written to a German reformer, who had asked for an expression

of opinion on Henry George; and the second, to a Russian peasant in

Siberia, who had heard something of Henry George and wished to know

more.)

I.

In reply to your letter I send you the enclosed with special pleasure. I

have been acquainted with Henry George since the appearance of his

Social Problems. I read them, and was struck by the correctness of his

main idea, and by the unique clearness and power of his argument, which

is unlike anything in scientific literature, and especially by the

Christian spirit, which also stands alone in the literature of science,

which pervades the book. After reading it I turned to his previous work,

Progress and Poverty, and with a heightened appreciation of its author’s

activity. You ask my opinion of Henry George’s work, and of his single

tax system. My opinion is the following:—

Humanity advances continually towards the enlightenment of its

consciousness, and to the institution of modes of life corresponding to

this consciousness. Hence in every period of life and humanity there is,

on the one hand, a progressive enlightenment of consciousness, and on

the other a realisation in life of what is enlightened. At the close of

the 18^(th) century and the beginning of the 19^(th), a progressive

enlightenment of consciousness occurred in Christianised humanity with

respect to the working classes, who were previously in various phases of

slavery; and a progressive realisation of new forms of life—the

abolition of slavery and the substitution of free-hired labour.

At the present day a progressive enlightenment of human consciousness is

taking place with reference to the use of land, and soon, it seems to

me, a progressive realisation of this must follow. And in this

progressive enlightenment with reference to the use of land, and its

realisation which constitutes one of the chief problems of our time, the

fore-man, the leader of the movement, was and is Henry George. In this

lies his immense and predominant importance. He contributed by his

excellent books both to the enlightenment of the consciousness of

mankind and to the placing of it upon a practical footing.

But with the abolition of the revolting right of ownership in land, the

same thing is being repeated which took place, as we can still remember,

when slavery was abolished. The governments and ruling classes, knowing

that the advantages and authority of their position amongst men are

bound up in the land question, while pretending that they are

preoccupied with the welfare of the people, organising working-men’s

banks, inspection of labour, income taxes, and even an eight hours’ day,

studiously ignore the land question, and even, with the aid of an

obliging and easily corrupted science, assert that the expropriation of

land is useless, harmful, impossible.

The same thing is happening now as in the days of the slave trade.

Mankind, at the beginning of the 18^(th) and at the end of the 19^(th)

century, had long felt that slavery was an awful, soul-nauseating

anachronism; but sham-religion and sham-science proved that there was

nothing wrong in it; that it was indispensable, or, at least, that its

abolition would be premature. To-day something similar is taking place

with reference to property in land. In the same way sham-religion and

sham-science are proving that there is nothing wrong in landed property,

and that there is no need to abolish it. One might think it would be

palpable to every educated man of our time that the exclusive control of

land by people who do not work upon it, and who prevent hundreds and

thousands of distressed families making use of it, is an action every

whit as wicked and base as the possession of slaves; yet we see

aristocrats, supposed to be educated and refined, English, Austrian,

Prussian, Russian, who profit by this cruel and base right, and who are

not only not ashamed, but proud of it.

Religion blesses such possession, and the science of political economy

proves that it must exist for the greatest welfare of mankind. It is

Henry Greorge’s merit that lie not only exploded all the sophism whereby

religion and science justify landed property, and pressed the question

to the farthest proof, which forced all who had not stopped their ears

to acknowledge the unlawfulness of ownerships in land, but also that he

was the first to indicate a possibility of solution for the question. He

was the first to give a simple, straightforward answer to the usual

excuses made by the enemies of all progress, which affirm that the

demands of progress are illusions, impracticable, inapplicable.

The method of Henry George destroys this excuse by so putting the

question that by to-morrow committees might be appointed to examine and

deliberate on his scheme and its transformation into law. In Russia, for

instance, the inquiry as to the means for the ransom of land, or its

gratuitous confiscation for nationalisation, might be begun to-morrow,

and solved, with certain restrictions, as thirty-three years ago the

question of liberating the peasants was solved. To humanity the

indispensableness of this reform is demonstrated, and its feasibleness

is proved (emendations, alterations in the single tax system may be

required, but the fundamental idea is a possibility); and therefore

humanity cannot but do that which their reason demands. It is only

necessary, in order that this idea may become public opinion, that it

should be spread and explained precisely as you are doing, in which

cause I sympathise with you with all my heart, and wish you success.

II.

The scheme of Henry George is as follows:—The advantage and profit from

the use of land is not everywhere the same, since the more fertile,

convenient portions, adjoining populous districts, will always attract

many who wish to possess them; and so much the more as these portions

are hotter and more suitahle, they ought to he appraised according to

their advantages; the better, dearer; the worse, cheaper; the worst,

cheapest of all.

Whereas the land which attracts but few should not be appraised at all,

but conceded without payment to those who are willing to cultivate it by

their own manual labour. According to such a valuation, convenient

plough land in the government of Toula, for example, would be valued at

about five or six roubles the dessyatin (about two and three-quarter

acres); market garden land near villages at ten roubles; the same, but

liable to spring floods, fifteen roubles, and so on. In towns the

valuation would be from one hundred to five hundred roubles the

dessyatin; and in Moscow and Petersburg, in go-ahead places, and about

the harbours of navigable rivers, several thousands or tens of thousands

of roubles the dessyatin.

When all the land in the country has been thus appraised, Henry George

proposes to pass a law declaring that all the land, from such a year and

date, shall belong no longer to any separate individual, but to the

whole country, to the whole nation; and that thereafter everyone who

possesses land must gradually pay to the State, that is, to the whole

nation, the price at which it has been appraised.

This payment must be expended on all the public needs of the State, so

that it will take the place of every kind of monetary imposition, both

local and national—the custom house, etc.

According to this scheme it would follow that a landowner, who was at

present in possession of two thousand dessyatins, would continue to own

them, but would have to pay for them into the treasury, here in Toula,

between twelve and fifteen thousand roubles a year, because hereabouts

the best land for agricultural and building purposes would be included;

and no large landowner would be able to bear the strain of such a

payment, and would be obliged to give up the land. Whereas our Toula

peasant would have to pay about two roubles less for each dessyatin of

the same ground than he does at present, would always have available

land around him which he could hire for five or six roubles, and, in

addition, would not only have no other taxes to pay, but would receive

all Russian and foreign articles which he needs without imposts. In

towns the owners of houses and manufactories can continue to possess

their property, bnt will have to pay for the land they occupy, according

to its valuation, into the common treasury.

The advantage of such a system will be—

That no one will be deprived of the possibility of using land.

That idle men, possessing land, and forcing others to work for them in

return for the use of the land, will cease to exist.

That the land will be in the hands of those who work it and not of

those who do not.

That the people being able to work on the land will cease to enslave

themselves as labourers in mills and factories, and as servants in

towns; and will disperse themselves about the country.

That there will be no longer any overseers and tax collectors in

factories, mills, stores, and custom houses, but only collectors of

payment for the land, which it is impossible to steal, and from which

taxes may be most easily collected.

and chiefly. That those who do not labour will be freed from the sin

of profiting by the labours of others (in doing which they are often not

to blame, being from childhood educated in idleness, and not knowing how

to work); and from the still greater sin of every kind of falsehood and

excuse to shift the blame from themselves; and that those who do labour

will be delivered from the temptation and sin of envy, condemnation of

others, and exasperation against those who do not work; and thus will

disappear one of the causes of dissension between man and man.

(First published in The New Age. Revised from original.)

On Communal Life

(From a Letter to a Friend)

It is quite true, as you say in your article, and H—— in his, that

Christian life is quite impossible in the present unchristian

organisation of society. The contradiction between his surroundings and

his convictions is very painful for a man who is sincere in his

Christian faith, and therefore the organisation of communities seems to

such a man the only means of delivering himself from these

contradictions.

But this is an illusion. Every community is a small island in the midst

of an ocean of unchristian conditions of life, so that the Christian

relations exist only between the members of the colony; while outside

they must remain unchristian, otherwise the colony could not exist for

one moment. And therefore to live in a community cannot save a Christian

from the contradiction between his conscience and his life.

I do not mean to say that I do not approve of the organisation of

communities such as your commonwealth, or that I do not think them good

things. On the contrary, I approve of them with all my heart, and am

very interested in your commonwealth, and wish it the greatest success.

I think that every man who can free himself from the conditions of

worldly life without breaking the ties of love,—love, the main

principle, in the name of which he is seelong new forms of life,—I think

such a man not only must, but will naturally join people who have the

same beliefs, and who try to live up to them. If I were free I would

immediately, even at my age, join such a colony.

I only wished to say that the mere forming of communities is not a

solution of the Christian problem, but is only one of the means for its

solution. The revolution that is going on for the attainment of the

Christian ideal is so enormous, our life is so different from what it

ought to be, that for the perfect success of this revolution, for the

concordance of conscience and life is needed the work of all men—men

living in commimities, as well as men of the world living in the most

different conditions. This ideal is not so quickly and so simply

attained as we think and wish, and the ideal will be attained only when

every man in the whole world will say: “Why should I sell my services

and buy yours? If mine are greater than yours, I owe them to you.” For,

if there be in the whole world one man who does not think and act by

this principle, and who will appropriate and keep by violence what he

can take from others, no man can live a true Christian life, whether it

be in a community or outside it. We cannot be saved separately, we must

be saved altogether. And this can be attained only through the

modification of the conception of life, i.e. the faith of all men. And

to this end we must work all together—men living in the world, as well

as men living in communities.

We must all of us remember that we are messengers from the great King,

the God of love, with the message of unity and love amongst all living

beings. And, therefore, we must not for a minute forget our mission, and

may do all that we think useful and agreeable for ourselves, only so

long as it is not in opposition to our mission, which is to be

accomplished not only by words, but by example, and especially by the

infection of love.

Please give my respect and love to the colonists, and ask them not to be

offended by my giving them advice which may be unnecessary.

I advise them to remember that all material questions, money,

implements, even nourishment, the very existence of the colony itself,

all these things are of little importance in comparison with the sole

object of our life: to preserve love amongst all men with whom we come

in contact. If, with the object of keeping the interests of the colony,

or of protecting the thrift of it, you must quarrel with a friend or

with a stranger, must excite ill-feeling in somebody, it is better to

give up everything than to act against love.

And let your friends not dread that the strict following of this

principle will destroy the practical work. Even the practical work will

flourish, not as we expect it, but in its own way, only if we are

strictly following the law of love; and will perish if we act in

opposition to it.