388 



The Review of Reviews. 



October 1, 1906. 



•'AFTER CAPITALISM"— WHAT? 



Mr. Ernest E. Williams, author of " Made in Ger- 

 many, ' writes in the Monthly Review a paper en- 

 titled " Capitalism." He sees that capitalism is 

 rapidly reaching such a pitch as to be on the point 

 of refuting and exploding itself. It might seem 

 that C(ille(-tivism or Sociali-;m was its inevitable sue- 



ttnne to serve the community by Btrivine fheir hardest to 

 increase the output of wealth, the greater part of which 

 will go to the community. .And does the Collectivist ask: 

 Why let these men retain any profit at all out of capital 

 which in justice should not be theirs? I answer, without 

 arguing the justice of the arrangement, that simply as a 

 matter of expediency sucii an arrangement is best for the 

 community. It is simply a matter of paying commission, 

 and the commission will he well earned, because even after 

 paying it tlie total output of wealth for the coramiinity's 



By permission of the proprietors.'] 



Discovered. 



{After the " T.anding of Columbus " by Vanderh/h 



f Life," New Tort. 



cesser. But Mr. Williams objects to Collectivism 

 as likely to produce less wealth than the present 

 system, and to crush individual freedom. He ofifers 

 an alternative. He would recognise human solida- 

 rity', democracy and the social origin of capital. He 

 would allow legislative effort to socialise the fruits 

 of capital. But there he would part company with 

 the Collectivist. He goes on : — 



What does it matter if one man calls himself a landlord 

 and another exercises control and direction over factories 

 and shops so long as they exercise their functions for the 

 benefit of the community?' Let them, stimulated by the 

 hope of profit, continue to exercise control over the means 

 of production, but let the community also ordain that the 

 greater part of their profits shall go back to the com- 

 munity. We do this now to a small extent; the landowner 

 and tlie capitalist, when they pay income tax upon their 

 rents and profits, give back to the community part of the 

 fruits of their capital. They will not cease their efforts 

 to produce the maximum quantity of wealth if a larger 

 share is taken. So long as they are left a share tor them- 

 selves, and a share of indefinite amount, varying accord- 

 ing to, the success of their efforts, so long will they con- 



nse will be greater than were the State to expropriate the 

 means of production and itself employ labour upon those 

 means of production: and in addition the destruction 

 of individual freedom and all the insupportable tyrannies 

 of a Collectivist regime will be avoided. We should change 

 from an era of unrestrained capitalism to an era of re- 

 strained social individualism. 



There is nothing impracticable in this suggestion. It is 

 even now in operation on a small, but growing, scale, and 

 it is a most encouraging sign of the times that this alter- 

 native to the present era is developing side by side with 

 the Collectivist alternative displayed in municipal trading. 



An Indian Militia for the Indian Frontier.- — In 



East and West for .\ugust Mr. R. Thorbum urges 



the Indian Government to enrol a militia in the 



Xorth-West Provinces. Of the warlike tribes, he 



says : — 



As regards the value of the investment, the upkeep of a 

 militia force 100.000 strong would be less tlian that of 

 20.000 Indian or 3000 British troops; hence the cost would 

 circulate in the country. Personally. I am convinced thati 

 it is the only possible form of insurance against invasion, 

 risks, and scares open to us. 



