Source: The Dublin Daily Express, 12 April 1886, page 7
Note: The text states that this speech was an introduction to a debate on 'What is Socialism', but it is also a delivery of the lecture Socialism
Transcription: by Graham Seaman for MIA, October 2022
'What is Socialism?' was the subject of debate at the meeting of the Saturday Club on Saturday evening last. Mr Walker presided. There was a large attendance. Mr William Morris arrived shortly after the proceedings commenced, and was received with loud applause.
The Chairman said State Socialism seemed to imply that competition should cease, and all capital should be vested in the State. When they asked Socialists what they proposed to give in exchange for the startling changes they desired to bring about, they were met with answers running on the following lines:— That capital should become the property of the State; that children should become the children of the State (laughter); that private properly should cease; that as every child brought nothing into the world, neither should any child carry anything out of the world (hear, hear).
Mr Morris said before they understood the question of Socialism they must understand the circumstances of society and what society was built upon. Why was one man rich. another man poor, and a third man a criminal. Was there not some reason for ths fact that men born equal occupied such different positions of inequality in the world? Socialists believed they knew why the different classes in society existed, and how they had grown to be what they are. Society at the present day was founded on the necessity for the human race of continuous labour?[sic] Without labour man cannot live, and the question was how labour can be best apportioned between mankind. At present one class has to do much work and has little wealth, while another class has no work to do—or, rather, it does no work and it has much wealth. There was a feeling among the human race that that was not right. Shortly speaking, there were two classes—one possessing all the means of producing wealth except one, and the other possessing none of the means of producing wealth except that one—the power of labour. Yet the class that lacked wealth was the class that produced it (hear, hear). There were soma occupations which were exercised by members of what were called the privileged classes—for instance physic, the fine arts, &c. All he would say with reference to the members of the professions was that some of them were overpaid when their incomes were compared with the amount which workingmen received for their livelihood. But they were only a small body when compared with the working classes, and their wealth was insignificant compared with that of those who not work all. The struggle of capitalist against capitalist, manufacturer against manufacturer, and labourer against labourer, has produced a competitive war between nation and nation, between manufacturer and manufacturer, and labourer and labourer, until the latter has at length learned to combine with his fellows in the interest of his class. Trades unions had gained a great success, but such unions should now look at the matter from different point of view, and hand over their success to other principles. The members of trades unions said, "We mast have share of the wealth we produce.” To combine for a livelihood and equal advantages for every one was the aim of the Socialists. They said, "We will not have masters any longer because we do not need them.” What they claimed was, that men should have the full product of their labour; that they should have the full benefit of the wealth they produced. They looked forward to a time when all wealth shall be the property of the community. But that statement should not be misunderstood. It was right then that they should understand what property means. A man may own a tract of land who will not cultivate it. That was doing harm to the community at large. The community could only hold property by using it properly, and by giving every one the benefit of it. The happiness of all was what the community most look forward to. That was a higher aim than the greatest happiness of the greatest number (hear. hear). But everybody should work for the commonwealth. The maxim of Socialism was "From each what he can do, and to each what he needs." If the rule held good in the family, "Bear ye one another’s burdens,” why should they in the bigger family of society snatch the meat from their brothers mouths like starving wolves? (Hear, hear.) The whole society should merge in that class called the society workers. To bring about the revolution in society suggested was a matter that lay in the hands of the working classes. They might have to struggle for it, but if they were united they would succeed. The Chartists did not gain their political liberty without a struggle, and their history taught this lesson, that the demand of a whole people cannot be denied (cheers),
Mr Monson contended that Mr Morris had not propounded any workable socialistic theory. Besides, if they looked to any country where Socialism flourished, could it said that the people of that country were in a happier or more prosperous condition than the people of these kingdoms? He denied it (hear, hear). If the conditions at present governing society produced the workhouse, Socialism would substitute for the workhouse the knacker’s yard (applause).
Mr O’Toole regarded Socialism as the perfection, if not the "ultimatum” of all politics (laughter) Its grand principle was "love your neighbour as yourself.” Some gentlemen said Socialism was identified with irreligion (cries of "yes, yes"). He maintained that it was eminently religious (laughter and hisses).
Mr Cherry, B.L. said if by Socialism men meant the improvement of the condition of the working classes, the abolition of class privileges, the giving to every man. no matter what his birth, a fair start in life, with the highest positions open to him. and to everv man a fair day’s wages for a fair day's work—if Socialism meant that, then he was a Socialist. But it seemed to him that that was not the principle of Socialism, but of democracy (applause). As he gathered from the statement made by Mr Morris, the loading principle of Socialism was the abolition of all private property and capital. That was not democracy (hear, hear). As the world exists in the present day, the most democratic countries are the least Socialistic (hear, hear). Could any advocate of Socialism point to one successful Socialistic scheme? Certainly not (hear, hear). Every scheme for the development of Socialism had failed, because Socialism itself was repugnant to the innate character of human nature (applause).
Mr Cullen asked if they adopted Socialism how would they maintain its principles (hear. hear). He was afraid the idea underlying Socialism was impracticable.
Mr Fitzpatrick said when the time had arrived to strike for Socialism the fight would not end as the majority now seemed to think it would. With the object of discrediting Socialism the cry of atheism had been sometimes raised in connexion with it. Atheism, he held, was not an argument against Socialism (hear, and hisses). A man has a right to worship God at any altar he pleases, and he has a right not to worship Him at all if he felt so inclined (hisses, and cries of ”Sit down”).
The Chairman appealed to the meeting to allow the speaker proceed to (hisses),
Mr Fitzpatrick, continuing, said the question of religion was a matter for each man’s own conscience. No man would be responsible hereafter for the mistakes made by his neighbour in this world, and therefore no man had a right to dictate to his neighbour in matters of religion (hisses, and hear, hear).
Mr Murray held that the introduction of Socialism would call into existence a more idle class than ever existed in the world (applause). It was foreign to human nature to expect people to work at all under such system (hear, hear).
Two other speakers ascended tbe platform, but chairman ruled that he could not hear them, as the hour was late, and it was now time for Mr Morris to reply. Morris rose to reply, but was received with deafening groans and hisses. It seemed if a determination had been arrived at to deny him a hearing. but he remained on the platform awaiting a favourable opportunity to answer the objections urged against the principles he had enunciated. The chairman tried to quiet the feelings of the people and restore order, but his effort proved unavailing, for the storm of hissing and groaning increased in strength and volume. Matters were also complicated by a Socialist getting up on a seat at tbe extreme end of the hall, and attempting to speak. The Chairman at this stage lost control of the meeting, and disorder became general. Sticks were drawn by many who appeared inclined to use them, and a number of respectable men fled in terror from the body of the hall to an open space beside the platform. A few orderly-disposed individuals interfered in the hope of bringing the meeting to an orderly conclusion, but their voices could not be heard in the prevailing turmoil. When the crowd had in some way disposed of the man who proposed to speak, the hissing gradually gave place to song, and “God save Ireland" was in the circumstances appropriately introduced. Afterwards, Mr Morris was impatiently heard for a few moments, and at the close of his reply the gas was suddenly and mysteriously turned out. Everybody then struggled to get to the door, and, of course, much crushing and confusion resulted in consequence. Some of the overturned seats were dragged in the struggle from the hall out to the lobby, and very few were left standing inside the building.