William Morris

On Socialism

As reported in the Birmingham Daily Post


Source: The Birmingham Daily Post, 17 May 1886, page 5
Note: This is a delivery of the lecture Socialism
Transcription: by Graham Seaman for MIA, October 2022


MR. W. MORRIS ON SOCIALISM.

Last night Mr. W. Morris delivered an address at Baskerville Hall, the Crescent, on "Socialism."

Mr. D. BAKER presided over a large audience.

Mr. MORRIS said there were few people who put to themselves the question, "Why am I in the position in which I am?" And few people, until recently, had ever doubted that the classes into which society was divided were not absolutely necessary. It appeared to be supposed that it was necessary for the existence of society that there should be a rich class and a poor one, and people did not trouble their heads as to what made some belong to the rich and some to the poor class. There had always been in communities called civilised a class which had much work and little wealth, and another class which had much wealth and little work. To-day it was the rule of society that those who worked most should fare the hardest, and that the reward of idleness should be abundant wealth. Present day society was a sham. If it was not for fear of revolt workmen would only have to eat as much as would enable them to live end work and breathe. Few workers now could be said to have more than bare subsistence wages. Under the present system workers when they grew sick and old would die outright but for the refuge of the work-house, which was made as prison-like as possible, for fear that the lower-paid workers should in their despair take refuge there before their time of industrial death. This was the distinction between the two classes—that the one possessed nothing but the power of labour inherent in their bodies, and the other possessed everything necessary to make that labour fruitful. The class that lacked wealth was the class which produced it—the wealth owners only consumed it. It might be said that the possessing classes worked. A large part did, but their work was almost always unfruitful, and sometimes it was directly harmful There was always a class struggle going on between the employer and the employed. The interests of the two classes were opposed to each other. There were some who hoped that a new religion would arise that would take hold of the hearts of men; that they would forego the opportunity of gambling with other people's property, and living luxuriously at other people's expense, and that they would live justly and austerely, and consider themselves nothing but the trustees of the wealth that others had made. No man, in his opinion, was good enough to be a master over others. Equality of fellowship was abso1utely necessary. He hoped for the rise of a new religion called Socialism, which denied the title of society to degrade one class at the expense of another. Socialism asserted that each man should pay his tribute of labour to nature, and that each should receive his share of the wealth which each had done his best to create. Combination for livelihood, and the assurance of an equal chance for everyone was what they wanted to bring about. There were abundant signs of an approaching change in the present state of things for those who could see them. They wanted to make men leave off saying "This is mine" and "That is thine," and to say "It is all ours." They looked forward to a society in which all property should be held collectively. The remedy for all the evils was in the hands of the workers. They must get rid of the useless class, and let the producer, in one way or another, have all that he produced. When that took place the land, the capital, and the machinery would naturally fall into the possession of the producer, since it would be useless to anyone else: In fact there would soon be no one else to possess it. The non-producing class would melt into the general society of workers. It lay with the working classes to bring this about. Whatever they demanded would be yielded if they worked with reason. It rested with the workers whether the revolution should come violently or peacefully.