s been inconsistent with this attitude. Then
Mr. Barker goes on: "Fabianism began after 1884 to supply a new
philosophy in place of Benthamite Individualism. Of the new gospel of
collectivism a German writer[48] has said Webb was the Bentham and Shaw
the Mill.[49] Without assigning roles we may fairly say there is some
resemblance between the influence of Benthamism on legislation after
1830 and the influence of Fabianism on legislation since, at any rate,
1906.[50] In either case we have a small circle of thinkers and
investigators in quiet touch with politicians: in either case we have a
'permeation' of general opinion by the ideas of these thinkers and
investigators.... It is probable that the historian of the future will
emphasise Fabianism in much the same way as the historian of to-day
emphasises Benthamism."[51]
Mr. Barker next explains that "Fabianism has its own political creed, if
it is a political creed consequential upon an economic doctrine. That
economic doctrine advocates the socialisation of rent. But the rents
which the Fabians would socialise are not only rents from land. Rent in
the sense of unearned increments may be drawn, and is drawn, from other
sources. The successful entrepreneur for instance draws a rent of
ability from his superior equipment and education. The socialisation of
every kind of rent will necessarily arm the State with great funds which
it must use.... Shaw can define the two interconnected aims of Fabianism
as 'the gradual extension of the franchise and the transfer of rent and
interest to the State.'"
As Mr. Barker may not be alone in a slight misinterpretation of Fabian
doctrine it may be well to take this opportunity of refuting the error.
He says that Fabianism advocates the socialisation of rent, and in
confirmation quotes Shaw's words "rent _and interest_"! That makes all
the difference. If the term rent is widened to include all differential
unearned incomes, from land, from ability, from opportunity (i.e.
special profits), interest includes all non-differential unearned
incomes, and thus the State is to be endowed, not with rents alone, but
with all unearned incomes.[52] It is true that the Fabians, throwing
over Marx's inaccurate term "surplus value," base their Socialism on the
Law of Rent, because, as they allege, this law negatives both equality
of income and earnings in proportion to labour, so long as private
ownership of land prevails. It is also true that they h
|