There is a fact at the root of all realities to-day which cannot be stated too simply.It is that the powers of this world are now not trusted simply because they are not trustworthy.This can be quite clearly seen and said without any reference to our several passions or partisanships.It does not follow that we think such a distrust a wise sentiment to express;it does not even follow that we think it a good sentiment to entertain.But such is the sentiment,simply because such is the fact.The distinction can be quite easily defined in an example.
I do not think that private workers owe an indefinite loyalty to their employer.But I do think that patriotic soldiers owe a more or less indefinite loyalty to their leader in battle.But even if they ought to trust their captain,the fact remains that they often do not trust him;and the fact remains that he often is not fit to be trusted.
Most of the employers and many of the Socialists seem to have got a very muddled ethic about the basis of such loyalty;and perpetually try to put employers and officers upon the same disciplinary plane.I should have thought myself that the difference was alphabetical enough.It has nothing to do with the idealising of war or the materialising of trade;it is a distinction in the primary purpose.There might be much more elegance and poetry in a shop under William Morris than in a regiment under Lord Kitchener.But the difference is not in the persons or the atmosphere,but in the aim.The British Army does not exist in order to pay Lord Kitchener.William Morris's shop,however artistic and philanthropic,did exist to pay William Morris.If it did not pay the shopkeeper it failed as a shop;but Lord Kitchener does not fail if he is underpaid,but only if he is defeated.The object of the Army is the safety of the nation from one particular class of perils;therefore,since all citizens owe loyalty to the nation,all citizens who are soldiers owe loyalty to the Army.But nobody has any obligation to make some particular rich man richer.A man is bound,of course,to consider the indirect re-suits of his action in a strike;but he is bound to consider that in a swing,or a giddy-go-round,or a smoking concert;in his wildest holiday or his most private conversation.But direct responsibility like that of a soldier he has none.He need not aim solely and directly at the good of the shop;for the ****** reason that the shop is not aiming solely and directly at the good of the nation.
The shopman is,under decent restraints,let us hope,trying to get what he can out of the nation;the shop assistant may,under the same decent restraints,get what he can out of the shopkeeper.All this distinction is very obvious.At least I should have thought so.
But the primary point which I mean is this.That even if we do take the military view of mercantile service,even if we do call the rebellious shop assistant "disloyal"--that leaves exactly where it was the question of whether he is,in point of fact,in a good or bad shop.Granted that all Mr.Poole's employees are bound to follow for ever the cloven pennon of the Perfect Pair of Trousers,it is all the more true that the pennon may,in point of fact,become imperfect.Granted that all Barney Barnato's workers ought to have followed him to death or glory,it is still a Perfectly legitimate question to ask which he was likely to lead them to.Granted that Dr.Sawyer's boy ought to die for his master's medicines,we may still hold an inquest to find out if he died of them.
While we forbid the soldier to shoot the general,we may still wish the general were shot.
