Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell (fiction novels to read .txt) 📕

`‘Ear, ‘ear,’ shouted the man on the pail. `Git up into the bloody

pulpit and give us a sermon.’

As Owen made no response to the invitations, the crowd began to hoot

and groan.

`Come on, man,’ whispered Philpot, winking his goggle eye persuasively

at Owen. `Come on, just for a bit of turn, to pass the time away.’

Owen accordingly ascended the steps - much to the secret delight of

Crass - and was immediately greeted with a round of enthusiastic

applause.

`There you are, you see,’ said Philpot, addressing the meeting. `It’s

no use booin’ and threatenin’, because ‘e’s one of them lecturers wot

can honly be managed with kindness. If it ‘adn’t a bin for me, ‘e

wouldn’t ‘ave agreed to speak at all.’

Philpot having been unanimously elected chairman, proposed by Harlow

and seconded by the man on the pail, Owen commenced:

`Mr Chairman and gentlemen:

`Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking, it is with some degree of

hesitation that I venture to address myself to such a large,

distinguished, fashionable, and intelligent looking audience as that

which I have the honour of seeing before me on the present occasion.’

(Applause.)

`One of the finest speakers I’ve ever ‘eard!’ remarked the man on the

pail in a loud whisper to the chairman, who motioned him to be silent.

Owen continued:

`In some of my previous lectures I have endeavoured to convince you

that money is in itself of no value and of no real use whatever. In

this I am afraid I have been rather unsuccessful.’

`Not a bit of it, mate,’ cried Crass, sarcastically. `We all agrees

with it.’

`‘Ear, ‘ear,’ shouted Easton. `If a bloke was to come in ‘ere now and

orfer to give me a quid - I’d refuse it!’

`So would I,’ said Philpot.

`Well, whether you agree or not, the fact remains. A man might

possess so much money that, in England, he would be comparatively

rich, and yet if he went to some country where the cost of living is

very high he would find himself in a condition of poverty. Or one

might conceivably be in a place where the necessaries of life could

not be bought for money at all. Therefore it is more conducive to an

intelligent understanding of the subject if we say that to be rich

consists not necessarily in having much money, but in being able to

enjoy an abundance of the things that are made by work; and that

poverty consists not merely in being without money, but in being short

of the necessaries and comforts of life - or in other words in being

short of the Benefits of Civilization, the things that are all,

without exception, produced by work. Whether you agree or not with

anything else that I say, you will all admit that that is our

condition at the present time. We do not enjoy a full share of the

benefits of civilization - we are all in a state of more or less

abject poverty.’

`Question!’ cried Crass, and there were loud murmurs of indignant

dissent from several quarters as Owen proceeded:

`How does it happen that we are so short of the things that are made

by work?’

`The reason why we’re short of the things that’s made by work,’

interrupted Crass, mimicking Owen’s manner, `is that we ain’t got the

bloody money to buy ‘em.’

`Yes,’ said the man on the pail; `and as I said before, if all the

money in the country was shared out equal today according to Owen’s

ideas - in six months’ time it would be all back again in the same

‘ands as it is now, and what are you goin’ to do then?’

`Share again, of course.’

This answer came derisively from several places at the same instant,

and then they all began speaking at once, vying with each other in

ridiculing the foolishness of `them there Socialists’, whom they

called `The Sharers Out’.

Barrington was almost the only one who took no part in the

conversation. He was seated in his customary place and, as usual,

silently smoking, apparently oblivious to his surroundings.

`I never said anything about “sharing out all the money”,’ said Owen

during a lull in the storm, `and I don’t know of any Socialist who

advocates anything of the kind. Can any of you tell me the name of

someone who proposes to do so?’

No one answered, as Owen repeated his inquiry, this time addressing

himself directly to Crass, who had been one of the loudest in

denouncing and ridiculing the `Sharers Out’. Thus cornered, Crass -

who knew absolutely nothing about the subject - for a few moments

looked rather foolish. Then he began to talk in a very loud voice:

`Why, it’s a well-known fact. Everybody knows that’s what they wants.

But they take bloody good care they don’t act up to it theirselves,

though. Look at them there Labour members of Parliament - a lot of

b—rs what’s too bloody lazy to work for their livin’! What the

bloody ‘ell was they before they got there? Only workin’ men, the

same as you and me! But they’ve got the gift o’ the gab and -‘

`Yes, we know all about that,’ said Owen, `but what I’m asking you is

to tell us who advocates taking all the money in the country and

sharing it out equally?’

`And I say that everybody knows that’s what they’re after!’ shouted

Crass. `And you know it as well as I do. A fine thing!’ he added

indignantly. `Accordin’ to that idear, a bloody scavenger or a farm

labourer ought to get as much wages as you or me!’

`We can talk about that some other time. What I want to know at

present is - what authority have you for saying that Socialists

believe in sharing out all the money equally amongst all the people?’

`Well, that’s what I’ve always understood they believed in doing,’

said Crass rather lamely.

`It’s a well-known fact,’ said several others.

`Come to think of it,’ continued Crass as he drew the Obscurer cutting

from his waistcoat pocket, `I’ve got a little thing ‘ere that I’ve

been goin’ to read to yer. It’s out of the Obscurer. I’d forgotten

all about it.’

Remarking that the print was too small for his own eyes, he passed the

slip of paper to Harlow, who read aloud as follows:

PROVE YOUR PRINCIPLES: OR, LOOK AT BOTH SIDES

`I wish I could open your eyes to the true misery of our

condition: injustice, tyranny and oppression!’ said a discontented

hack to a weary-looking cob as they stood side by side in unhired

cabs.

`I’d rather have them opened to something pleasant, thank you,’

replied the cob.

`I am sorry for you. If you could enter into the noble

aspirations -‘ the hack began.

`Talk plain. What would you have?’ said the cob, interrupting

him.

`What would I have? Why, equality, and share and share alike all

over the world,’ said the hack.

`You MEAN that?’ said the cob.

`Of course I do. What right have those sleek, pampered hunters and

racers to their warm stables and high feed, their grooms and

jockeys? It is really heart-sickening to think of it,’ replied

the hack.

`I don’t know but you may be right,’ said the cob, `and to show

I’m in earnest, as no doubt you are, let me have half the good

beans you have in your bag, and you shall have half the musty oats

and chaff I have in mine. There’s nothing like proving one’s

principles.’

Original Parables. By Mrs Prosier.

`There you are!’ cried several voices.

`What does that mean?’ cried Crass, triumphantly. `Why don’t you go

and share your wages with the chaps what’s out of work?’

`What does it mean?’ replied Owen contemptuously. `It means that if

the Editor of the Obscurer put that in his paper as an argument

against Socialism, either he is of feeble intellect himself or else he

thinks that the majority of his readers are. That isn’t an argument

against Socialism - it’s an argument against the hypocrites who

pretend to be Christians - the people who profess to “Love their

neighbours as themselves” - who pretend to believe in Universal

Brotherhood, and that they do not love the world or the things of the

world and say that they are merely “Pilgrims on their way to a better

land”. As for why I don’t do it - why should I? I don’t pretend to

be a Christian. But you’re all “Christians” - why don’t you do it?’

`We’re not talkin’ about religion,’ exclaimed Crass, impatiently.

`Then what are you talking about? I never said anything about

“Sharing Out” or “Bearing one another’s burdens”. I don’t profess to

“Give to everyone who asks of me” or to “Give my cloak to the man who

take away my coat”. I have read that Christ taught that His followers

must do all these things, but as I do not pretend to be one of His

followers I don’t do them. But you believe in Christianity: why don’t

you do the things that He said?’

As nobody seemed to know the answer to this question, the lecturer

proceeded:

`In this matter the difference between so-called “Christians” and

Socialists is this: Christ taught the Fatherhood of God and the

Brotherhood of Men. Those who today pretend to be Christ’s followers

hypocritically profess to carry out those teachings now. But they

don’t . They have arranged “The Battle of Life” system instead!

`The Socialist - very much against his will - finds himself in the

midst of this horrible battle, and he appeals to the other combatants

to cease from fighting and to establish a system of Brotherly Love and

Mutual Helpfulness, but he does not hypocritically pretend to practise

brotherly love towards those who will not agree to his appeal, and who

compel him to fight with them for his very life. He knows that in

this battle he must either fight or go under. Therefore, in

self-defiance, he fights; but all the time he continues his appeal for

the cessation of the slaughter. He pleads for the changing system. He

advocates Co-operation instead of Competition: but how can he

co-operate with people who insist on competing with him? No

individual can practise co-operation by himself! Socialism can only

be practised by the Community - that is the meaning of the word. At

present, the other members of the community - the “Christians” -

deride and oppose the Socialist’s appeal.

`It is these pretended Christians who do not practise what they

preach, because, all the time they are singing their songs of

Brotherhood and Love, they are fighting with each other, and

strangling each other and trampling each other underfoot in their

horrible “Battle of Life”!

`No Socialist suggests “Sharing out” money or anything else in the

manner you say. And another thing: if you only had a little more

sense you might be able to perceive that this stock “argument” of

yours is really an argument against the present system, inasmuch as it

proves that Money is in itself of no use whatever. Supposing all the

money was shared out equally; and suppose there was enough of it for

everyone to have ten thousand pounds; and suppose they then all

thought they were rich and none of them would work. What would they

live on? Their money? Could they eat it or drink it or wear it? It

wouldn’t take them very long to find out that this wonderful money -

which under the