Plaster
New
List
Login
text
apl
aspx
asterisk
brainfuck
c
c++hdr
c++src
cassandra
ceylon
clojure
clojurescript
cmake
cobol
coffeescript
common-lisp
crystal
csharp
css
cypher-query
cython
d
dart
diff
django
dockerfile
dylan
ebnf
ecl
ecmascript
edn
eiffel
ejs
elm
erb
erlang
ez80
factor
fcl
feature
forth
fortran
fragment
gfm
go
gql
groovy
gss
haml
handlebars-template
haskell
haxe
hive
html
http
httpd-php
httpd-php-open
hxml
ini
java
javascript
json
jsp
jsx
julia
kotlin
latex
less
literate-haskell
lua
mariadb
markdown
mbox
mirc
mscgen
msgenny
mssql
mumps
mysql
n-triples
nesc
nginx-conf
nsis
objectivec
octave
oz
pascal
perl
pgp
pgp-keys
pgp-signature
pgsql
php
pig
plsql
properties
protobuf
puppet
python
q
rpm-changes
rpm-spec
rsrc
ruby
rustsrc
sas
sass
scala
scheme
scss
sieve
slim
smarty
solr
soy
sparql-query
spreadsheet
sql
squirrel
stex
styl
swift
systemverilog
tcl
textile
tiddlywiki
tiki
tlv
tornado
ttcn-asn
ttcn-cfg
turtle
twig
typescript
typescript-jsx
vb
vbscript
velocity
verilog
vertex
vhdl
vue
webidl
xml
xml-dtd
xquery
xu
yaml
z80
default
Visibility:
public
unlisted
private
And in truth if there was now no material fog, there was any amount of mental and moral fog. The whole industrial world symbolised by London had reached a curious complication and confusion, not easy to parallel in human history. It is not a question of controversies, but rather of cross-purposes. As I went by Charing Cross my eye caught a poster about Labour politics, with something about the threat of Direct Action and a demand for Nationalisation. And quite apart from the merits of the case, it struck me that after all the direct action is very indirect, and the thing demanded is many steps away from the thing desired. It is all part of a sort of tangle, in which terms and things cut across each other. The employers talk about "private enterprise," as if there were anything private about modern enterprise. Its combines are as big as many commonwealths; and things advertised in large letters on the sky cannot plead the shy privileges of privacy. Meanwhile the Labour men talk about the need to "nationalise" the mines or the land, as if it were not the great difficulty in a plutocracy to nationalise the Government, or even to nationalise the nation. The Capitalists praise competition while they create monopoly; the Socialists urge a strike to turn workmen into soldiers and state officials; which is logically a strike against strikes. I merely mention it as an example of the bewildering inconsistency, and for no controversial purpose. My own sympathies are with the Socialists; in so far that there is something to be said for Socialism, and nothing to be said for Capitalism. But the point is that when there is something to be said for one thing, it is now commonly said in support of the opposite thing. Never since the mob called out, "Less bread! More taxes!" in the nonsense story, has there been so truly nonsensical a situation as that in which the strikers demand Government control and the Government denounces its own control as anarchy. The mob howls before the palace gates, "Hateful tyrant, we demand that you assume more despotic powers"; and the tyrant thunders from the balcony, "Vile rebels, do you dare to suggest that my powers should be extended?" There seems to be a little misunderstanding somewhere.