The first thing to realize--though it is difficult in a commercial age--is that what is best in creative mental activity cannot be produced by any system of monetary rewards.Opportunity and the stimulus of an invigorating spiritual atmosphere are important, but, if they are presented, no financial inducements will be required, while if they are absent, material compensations will be of no avail.Recognition, even if it takes the form of money, can bring a certain pleasure in old age to the man of science who has battled all his life against academic prejudice, or to the artist who has endured years of ridicule for not painting in the manner ofhis predecessors; but it is not by the remote hope of such pleasures that their work has been inspired.All the most important work springs from an uncalculating impulse, and is best promoted, not by rewards after the event, but by circumstances which keep the impulse alive and afford scope for the activities which it inspires.In the creation of such circumstances our present system is much at fault.Will Socialism be better?
I do not think this question can be answered without specifying the kind of Socialism that is intended: some forms of Socialism would, I believe, be even more destructive in this respect than the present capitalist regime, while others would be immeasurably better.Three things which a social system can provide or withhold are helpful to mental creation: first, technical training; second, liberty to follow the creative impulse; third, at least the possibility of ultimate appreciation by some public, whether large or small.We may leave out of our discussion both individual genius and those intangible conditions which make some ages great and others sterile in art and science--not because these are unimportant, but because they are too little understood to be taken account of in economic or political organization.The three conditions we have mentioned seem to cover most of what can be SEEN to be useful or harmful from our present point of view, and it is therefore to them that we shall confine ourselves.
1.Technical Training.--Technical training at present, whether in science or art, requires one or other of two conditions.Either a boy must be the son of well-to-do parents who can afford to keep him while he acquires his education, or he must show so much ability at an early age as to enable him to subsist on scholarships until he is ready to earn his living.The former condition is, of course, a mere matter of luck, and could not be preserved in its present form under any kind of Socialism or Communism.This loss is emphasized by defenders of the present system, and no doubt it would be, to same extent, a real loss.But the well-to-do are a small proportion of the population, and presumably on the average no more talented by nature than their less fortunate contemporaries.If the advantages which are enjoyed now by those few among them who are capable of good work in science or art could be extended, even in a slightly attenuated form, to all who are similarly gifted, the result wouldalmost infallibly be a gain, and much ability which is now wasted would be rendered fruitful.But how is this to be effected?
The system of scholarships obtained by competition, though better than nothing, is objectionable from many points of view.It introduces the competitive spirit into the work of the very young; it makes them regard knowledge from the standpoint of what is useful in examinations rather than in the light of its intrinsic interest or importance; it places a premium upon that sort of ability which is displayed precociously in glib answers to set questions rather than upon the kind that broods on difficulties and remains for a time rather dumb.What is perhaps worse than any of these defects is the tendency to cause overwork in youth, leading to lack of vigor and interest when manhood has been reached.It can hardly be doubted that by this cause, at present, many fine minds have their edge blunted and their keenness destroyed.
State Socialism might easily universalize the system of scholarships obtained by competitive examination, and if it did so it is to he feared that it would be very harmful.State Socialists at present tend to be enamored of the systems which is exactly of the kind that every bureaucrat loves: orderly, neat, giving a stimulus to industrious habits, and involving no waste of a sort that could be tabulated in statistics or accounts of public expenditure.Such men will argue that free higher education is expensive to the community, and only useful in the case of those who have exceptional abilities; it ought, therefore, they will say, not to be given to all, but only to those who will become more useful members of society through receiving it.Such arguments make a great appeal to what are called ``practical'' men, and the answers to them are of a sort which it is difficult to render widely convincing.Revolt against the evils of competition is, however, part of the very essence of the Socialist's protest against the existing order, and on this ground, if on no other, those who favor Socialism may be summoned to look for some better solution.
