From Essays in Socialism New & Old (1907), pp.105-106.
THE greatest foe of all progress is the superannuated pioneer. The man, or the party, or the society, or the public body, which in its time has played a conspicuous part in a particular phase of the progressive movement, and especially if he or it has succeeded in materially helping to realise the particular phase in question, is, almost invariably, an obstacle in the path of further progress. After us the deluge, so far as progress is concerned, is the attitude of the pioneer who has done his work. That progress should have any further phase beyond the one which has made his own reputation, or which he has been instrumental in achieving, never seems to occur to the pioneer. But unfortunately he does not always confine himself to passive opposition, only too frequently misusing the influence or name he has acquired through his previous exploits by throwing it into the scales on the side of reaction.
Illustrations of the above thesis are to be had galore. What more worthless politicians from a democratic point of view, or more hopeless reactionaries, than are to be found among the survivors of the ’48 movement? Your Kossuths, your Crispis, your Mazzinis, what did they later become? Kossuth declared the greatest danger of the age to be Socialism, Crispi developed into the notorious premier of Umberto, Mazzini into the cowardly denouncer of the Commune while the corpses of its martyrs still strewed the streets of Paris. The contemptible nationalist ideal for which the men of ’48 mostly fought was miserable enough, it is true, but it is supposed to represent a stage in the development of modern capitalism from feudal conditions, and as such could be conceived in its day and generation as a progressive idea. Yet the anti-Socialism of most of its former apostles is notorious.
Again, take our own trade unions. The notion of the modern workman’s combination was looked upon as revolutionary in early part of the nineteenth century – nay, later than the middle of the century the defence of trade unionism was counted to Professor Beesly for a righteousness entitling him to rank among the boldest of advanced social thinkers for all time. The feeling of the governing classes towards it, until quite recently, may be measured by the fact that it is scarcely a generation since the last of its legal disabilities was abolished – by no means without opposition. Yet what is the greatest obstacle to the formation of a solid Socialist party in this country? Precisely this very trade unionism, the erstwhile pioneer of working-class emancipation! Just those very men who, in their day, valiantly championed the cause of working-class organisation to attain limited economic ends against the capitalist and official reactionists of that time, are the men who to-day are most eager to block the way toward that organisation for political purposes, which has for its goal the complete emancipation of labour, economic, political and social.
To descend from great issues to a comparatively small one. A great authority in sanitation was telling me the other day, that the two most backward provincial towns of England, in matters sanitary, now, are precisely the two which were the first to adopt modern principles of sanitation at all. Having arrived at this stage, no power has yet been able to induce them to make those further improvements which other towns, many of which have only within the last few years had any sanitation in any form or shape, are now enjoying.
Once more. What country has the stiffest and most illiberal system of divorce in the present day? None other than England, the country which was the first to adopt the modern principle of the legal dissolution of the legal status of marriage under any conditions. While on the Continent, where divorce has been recently introduced, and in most of the States of North America, a marriage can be dissolved on any reasonable grounds, incompatibility of temper and the like, in Great Britain our judges and legists have steadfastly and systematically set their faces against any reform of the old English statute which makes adultery the sole ground for divorce. Not only have they striven against reform by legislation, but they have done their utmost by decision to accentuate the principle of the indissolubility of marriage on any other than the ground named.
Everywhere, and on all hands, we find illustrations of the truth that the greatest foes of progress are its pioneers. Be it the man, the nation, or the public body which has been the most active in fighting successfully for a reform or a progressive idea, he, she or it, there are ten chances to one, will be the greatest obstacle and often the bitterest foe of all further reform. Explain it as you will, fact it remains. Oh! if the average man would but learn to rule the opinion of the pioneer out in all issues of progress!
Natural history tells us of orders of living beings (e.g., insects) who die after having laid their eggs or otherwise accomplished their reproductive functions. Unfortunately the pioneer does not generally die after having accomplished his function. On the contrary, he has a way of hanging on a long time – be he man, institution, or national mode of thought. I am not in the habit of quoting the Bible, or seasoning my Socialism with Christian sentiment, but I must say that there is one passage in the epistle to the Galatians (chap.v), which appeals to me in this connection. “I would that they were even cut off that trouble you,” writes St. Paul anent his Petrine rivals, who seem to have been giving trouble in his newly founded “branch.” Now, here I feel inclined to echo the spirit of the aspiration expressed by the great “Apostle of the Gentiles.” Would indeed that the pioneer were cut off as soon as his work were done, or, at least, on his first symptoms of “troubling”!
Last updated on 13.1.2006