Part
I: Philosophy
CHAPTER IV
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
THE
consequences of the exaltation of the group over the individual
have often been pointed out in various forms of words, as well
as having been demonstrated sufficiently in such countries as
Russia and Germany, but it would be unduly optimistic to say
that they are generally recognised or understood. And the reason
for this is not far to seek. It is possible so to twist the
meaning of words, that policies which result in conditions which
are progressively obnoxious to the majority of persons affected
by them, can yet obtain a considerable amount of support, by
an appeal to high-sounding words such as democracy, justice,
and equality. The emotion to which appeal is made, is that which
was invoked to justify witch-burning. The point which is so
hard to make clear to the masses affected, is that a group is
an entity which has a life of its own; it is the body corporate
of an "interest," not of the myriad interests of the human units
composing it, and the surrender of volition to a group means,
quite inevitably, a surrender of the very things for which in
most instances the individual is struggling. Yet this body cannot
be kicked, nor can the group-soul be saved, save in the persons
of the individuals who lend themselves to its purposes. Even
the leaders of a group are only leaders so long as they serve
the interests of the group, and to that extent are as much slaves
of it, as the humblest member of the rank and file; a fact which
it is well to bear in mind when attributing to captains of industry
qualities which belong rather to their office than to the individuals
themselves. It is, of course, true that "head" or supervising
slaves are generally strong supporters of slavery as an institution.
And
yet it is patent that the modern world can only be operated
through a liberal use of the group idea. If we are to have great
co-operative undertakings, by which alone, so far as we are
aware, mankind can be freed from the necessity of devoting the
major portion of his day to the acquisition of sufficient food,
clothing, and shelter from the weather, there must be a submission
by those concerned in such enterprises to a given policy,
for instance, of production. This is, of course, common sense,
and a matter of common observation, and to the extent that
there is a legitimate relation between the group interest thus
formed, and the personal interests, is sound in every way. But
there are two qualifications which can be made in respect of
this submission. The first of these is, in plain English, bound
up with the length of time per day or per year during which
the submission is necessary, and it has already been observed
that the free play of modern science and organisation would,
under certain circumstances, tend to reduce this to a small
minimum within a short time. The second qualification is involved
in the phrase "freedom of association."
At
the present time such a thing can hardly be said to exist outside
the realms of sport. If I join a cricket club and find that
I do not like the game, or the methods governing the conduct
of the club itself, I am usually free to resign without further
penalty than attaches to the loss of association, and the consequent
facilities for playing cricket. But if I enter a profession
or business and find that I do not like it, or the methods under
which it is conducted, it is true that I am free to resign,
but the penalty attached to resignation greatly exceeds the
mere deprivation of association and the facilities to exercise
the profession or business - it includes economic catastrophe
for myself and my family. In other words, I come up against
the doctrine of rewards and punishments in an acute form, since
it is absurd to suggest that if I resign, the necessary work
previously done by me will remain undone. It will not, if it
is tolerable work and done under tolerable conditions. An average
consequence is that I do not either resign from, or criticise
actively, my associations of this nature. In passing, it may
be noticed that only recently has the absurdity of the "right
to strike," as exercised under current financial methods, dawned
upon the Labour Party and its constituents. Where one party
to a controversy can only obtain the means of subsistence by
"working" while the other party can continue, if not indefinitely,
for a long time, by drawing cheques on institutions which, if
necessary, can create their own deposits, the right to refrain
from working merely amounts to a right to commit suicide. The
decline of the practice of Hara-Kiri in Japan, as a means of
inflicting injury on an adversary, would tend to show that suicide
is losing its terrors for the onlooker.
There
is probably more nonsense spoken and written around the words
freedom and liberty, than in regard to any other two words in
the English language. As a result of this, we have been treated
to a dissertation by Signor Mussolini, suggesting that liberty
is an outworn and discredited word. Signor Mussolini is mistaken.
Liberty will come into its own, although it is quite possible
that two groups which appear to be enemies of it and have much
in common, including quite possibly, a similar origin, i.e.
Bolshevism and Fascism, may be necessary to clear the minds
of the public of much of the misconception which surrounds the
idea, by demonstrating what it is not.
Liberty
is really a simple thing, although difficult to come by. It
consists in freedom to choose or refuse one thing at a time.
It is undeniable that every action has consequences. But by
no means all the consequences of actions, as committed in everyday
life, are necessary consequences. If I drive a motor-car at
forty miles an hour on an open road, it is an artificial consequence
if I am fined for exceeding the speed limit, though a natural
consequence that I arrive at my destination quicker than if
I drove at twenty miles an hour. If I pick up a red-hot bar,
it is not necessary that I should be burnt. I can wear asbestos
gloves. It is the hedging round of actions with conditions or
"laws" of various descriptions so as to produce an artificial
or undesired train of consequences, which constitutes an infringement
of liberty, and in a large number of cases, just as it is the
Law which makes the Crime, it is stupidity which conceives the
law.
If
I say that, being a golfer, I wish to play golf all day, seven
days a week, I am in effect demanding freedom from certain limitations
which are normally imposed on me, such as the earning of a living,
not to mention other social duties. Now the abstract criticism
which is nearly always urged in connection with a hypothetical
case of this sort is, that if everyone played golf all day seven
days a week, the world would come to a standstill for want of
the necessaries of life. But this line of approach is both fallacious
and useless. The useful line of approach is to consider how
many people if free to do it, want to do this thing to this
extent, and what effect that number would have on the production
programme. And the possibility of an increase in the real liberty
of the subject depends not (as is so unceasingly proclaimed
by the upholders of things as they are) in a continual compromise
between individual rights, but in a continual attempt to remove
limitations which are non-automatic, that is to say, do not
proceed from what we call the laws of nature. It must be confessed
that a consideration of our machinery for putting regulations
on the statute book, does not lead to any great optimism at
the moment in this regard.
It
is in the method of attack on its problems, that modern inductive
science offers such a striking lesson to politics and legislation;
in recognising the existence of certain forces in the universe
which have real validity, and that in consequence its triumphs
must be achieved by ascertaining the nature of these forces
and, taking them as they are, employing and combining them to
achieve the desired result. But the whole of our modem civilisation
is hedged in, distorted, and confused by a number of limitations
which have no validity other than that which we choose to give
them. Let anyone who may doubt this statement, and its profound
significance, take up a daily paper and consider the suggestions
of correspondents and leader-writers in regard to any situation
which may at the moment be engaging attention. Has there been
a motor accident? Then a new law must be passed imposing fresh
restrictions on the use of motor-cars. Has there been a strike
in the East End? Laws should be passed to make striking illegal.
The joint phenomena of several millions of unemployed and under-employed,
capable of road building, and willing to work, and the fact
that 95 per cent of the motorcar accidents which occur are traceable
to avoidable congestion of traffic and out-of-date roads, is
apt to be the very last thing which is pointed out in relation
to the first-mentioned problem; and the fact that the actual
amount of goods which would be bought by the extra money necessary
to keep the East End strikers at work, is trivial in comparison
with the quantity available, is never even mentioned in regard
to the second.
It
should not be, but probably is, necessary, at this point, to
observe that it would be fantastic and impracticable to destroy
the whole fabric of legalism at one blow. There is a great deal
of work to be done in deciding the nature and relation of physical
and psychological limitations before anything so drastic is
possible. But it is possible to recognise and to work towards
the objective; and, moreover, it is urgent. Especially in America,
legalism is becoming an obsession. Yet non-automatic laws rest
upon a very insecure foundation. When we see, as we do, statements
in leading European and American journals to the effect that
civilisation is tottering, it may be inferred without much difficulty that it is this fabric of non-automatic rules and regulations
which seems to the writers to be in danger. The laws which govern
the combination of oxygen and hydrogen, or the rate of acceleration
of a stone dropped over a cliff, are never seriously endangered
by any of the events to which so much importance is attached
in Wall Street and Lombard Street.
This
being so, the picture presented to the mind of any thoughtful
observer must be that of a bridge which has been reared through
the agency of scaffolding and false-work. Its completion has
been delayed and its lines obscured by the failure to remove
the structure which has enabled it to be built, but which is
no longer necessary. The people of the world are clamouring
for admission and many of them are supported by the false-work.
The problem is to get the false-work away without precipitating into a catastrophe the swarming multitudes who regard it
as the real structure. Unfortunately, a number of the foremen
working on the bridge seem themselves unable or unwilling to
distinguish the structure from the scaffolding.
........