Bernard Shaw and May Morris

William Morris, one of England's foremost Socialists, poet and artist 1834-96, also had two daughters, but only one of them-May -took a keen interest in his work, attended all the meetings and social gatherings; the home of William Morris was famous for these. Bernard Shaw was one of the propagandists of that school. William Morris, having a good business as an architect and designer, was a wealthy man, and May, in addition to being beautiful, was always dressed exquisitely. Shaw related how he saw her in her radiant beauty come out of the dining room on one occasion, as he was about to leave, and how their eyes met and seemed to reciprocate their feelings, and he knew there was a mystic betrothal between them, but he said nothing as he then was only getting a subsistence living, and he thought it hardly became him to claim any nuptial associa­tion with such a famous family. So, continued Shaw, "I attended the meetings as usual, but to my stupefaction, she married another, and he worse off than myself."

It appears the other one was also a comrade, whom Morris had given employment to on the Kelmscott Press, then producing a Socialist paper. Shaw subsequently was suffering from some com­plaint and was asked by the newly married couple to stay with them for a period of convalescence. Shaw's versatile and humorous manner appeared to make him the central figure of the household; but the time came when his health improved, and he thought he had imposed on their hospitality long enough. On Shaw's departure the husband found himself in the possession of an iceberg rather than a warm lovable companion. Shaw, hearing of this, discreetly disappeared, thinking the matter might blow over, as it sometimes does. The husband apparently saw no hope, so he disappeared and went to France. May then obtained a divorce, and reverted to her own famous maiden name.

There is no record that I know of, of Shaw meeting May Morris again for many years afterwards. She agreed that the matter should be published from the pen of Shaw, rather than from others who might like to add scandalous colour to it. May Morris died in 1938.

Here then we have two of the most eminent Socialist propagan­dists who, in character and temperament are as far apart as the poles.

Shaw sacrificed his affections because his conscience told him that his position in that day would not allow him to make the proposal; and later, when he knew of the reciprocation, he avoided it to prevent public scandal.

Aveling did not appear to give any consideration to anyone's feelings or the current conception of morals and conventions. His only thought was his own gratification. So we find the Socialist's mental make-up is just as varied as other people's, although it has often been implied, that we are the product of some vile species of the human race.

Whatever customs or conventions are established under the control of a Socialist regime will be by the will of the people then, as in the past. I said "by the will of the people"-that implies, in democratic countries, majority rule; but that is a mistake when imposed on minorities, whose purpose may be equally good, but contrary to their religious faith. If that majority is allowed to impose their will, they infringe on the will and liberty of the minority. Therefore, any custom that any section of the people may choose should be allowed.

The same should be applied to industry. When we say, "from each according to their ability and temperament, to each according to their needs," it ought not to mean a row of national workshops, where each one can grasp his hammer, or stand by his machine at a given hour in the collective output of the commodity he is capable of producing. There are many who prefer such regular habits, and who have no initiative of their own.

Such a system on a short working day will suit perhaps most people: and then their garden, or boating, or whatever they choose as their recreation in their spare time. But there are other people whose minds are always full of invention, who look upon such clockwork regularity as a life of monotony, and themselves as servants of (as Herbert Spencer called it), "a servile state." They see in some of their own schemes things that will be a benefit and service to the community, and they found mutual associates in their effort. They want their own time to work and their own to place to work. and not to be hampered by outside interference. They want the liberty to think and work it out themselves, by voluntary association. These groups arc nut content to be State Socialists. Their deeds are the deeds of the Philosophical Anarchists. They aim at the perfection of their invention and the perfection of their habits and manners in their social, life. They desire their own liberty, and refrain from infringing on the liberty of others. Such a system will evolve by people picking themselves out of the machinery of control which will be necessary and inevitable for the guidance of those uninitiated or indisposed to do other than their duty to the control­ling, productive and distributive machinery.

Every Socialist movement has interesting points of analogy, but historical records show there have been a variety of different schools, and we cannot identify Socialism with any of their past or present activities. It will undergo many transformations. It has in the past been prolific of new thought as to its consummate ideal, and also disfigured by many forms of extravagance. We have yet to learn its form of procedure, which may have different forms in the different countries of the world.

To assume that the immediate collapse of private ownership and all forms of exploitations of industry will be immediately transformed into a condition embracing every human right and liberty is to assume a condition contrary to every recorded revolutionary move in history. To assume also that such collapse of private ownership will be the result of a civil war, means the opposite of any libertarian purpose.

The war craze about fighting for liberty is certainly to-day with us, and may aid our libertarian purpose, because people see the fallacies of it, which will teach them to revolt against war and its diabolical deeds.

Against all the accusations about our war tactics, let me say, as a Philosophical Socialist-and I can speak for all of them, but not many of those who call themselves Socialists, and none of those who call themselves Communists--that it astounds me to think and to know that, in this 20th century of scientific life, our Statesmen and political diplomats (the supposed pick of the human race) still believe in and create every improved machine that science can supply, with increasing destructive powers, as the final settlement of international differences.

Of those nations that are known as "the great powers" not one of them is the less guilty. What again seems most peculiar is this, that in their private life, and in their general behaviour, these gentlemen are often very pious people and kindly fathers who are often credited with many humanitarian deeds.

Again, what astounds me further is, that millions more good kindly people, who would shriek with horror at anything approaching murder, who pour out pious prayers on the sacredness of human life; aid, condone and are willing participants in the slaughter of millions of innocent people. They are in most cases ignorant of the reason which causes such conflicts, but blindly obey the current slogan about the purpose for it.

I was a combatant myself in the Anglo-Boer War, but I was then an Imperial regular soldier and was not asked, but sent here to participate. Expressions I sometimes gave during the conflict brought threats of prosecutions from some of my fellow combatants, and even a fight with one considered a bully, but I knocked him out in the first round. We were the garrison of Graaff Reinet at the time, and he was ordered to be detained in camp for ten days with a bruised face.