now let us imagine some one who will dispute what i am saying. i do not suppose any one will dispute my argument that a large part of the misery of civilised life—i do not say “all” but only a “large part”—arises out of the network of squalid insufficiencies of which i have taken this misery of boots as the simplest example. but i do believe quite a lot of people will be prepared to deny that such miseries can be avoided. they will say that every one cannot have the best of things, that of all sorts of good things, including good leather and cobbling, there is not enough to go round, that lower-class people ought not to mind being shabby and uncomfortable, that they ought to be very glad to be able to live at all, considering what they are, and that it is no good stirring up discontent about things that cannot be altered or improved.

such arguments are not to be swept aside with a wave of the hand. it is perfectly true that every one cannot have the best of things; and it is in the nature of things that some boots should be better and some worse. to some people, either by sheer good luck, or through the strength of their determination to have them, the exquisitely good boots, those of the finest leather and the most artistic cut, will fall. i have never denied that. nobody dreams of a time when every one will have exactly as good boots as every one else; i am not preaching any such childish and impossible equality. but it is a long way from recognising that there must be a certain picturesque and interesting variety in this matter of foot-wear, to the admission that a large majority of people can never hope for more than to be shod in a manner that is frequently painful, uncomfortable, unhealthy, or unsightly. that admission i absolutely refuse to make. there is enough good leather in the world to make good sightly boots and shoes for all who need them, enough men at leisure and enough power and machinery to do all the work required, enough unemployed intelligence to organise the shoemaking and shoe distribution for everybody. what stands in the way?

let us put that question in a rather different form. here on the one hand—you can see for yourself in any unfashionable part of great britain—are people badly, uncomfortably, painfully shod, in old boots, rotten boots, sham boots; and on the other great stretches of land in the world, with unlimited possibilities of cattle and leather and great numbers of people, who, either through wealth or trade disorder, are doing no work. and our question is: “why cannot the latter set to work and make and distribute boots?”

imagine yourself trying to organise something of this kind of free booting expedition; and consider the difficulties you would meet with. you would begin by looking for a lot of leather. imagine yourself setting off to south america, for example, to get leather; beginning at the very beginning by setting to work to kill and flay a herd of cattle. you find at once you are interrupted. along comes your first obstacle in the shape of a man who tells you the cattle and the leather belong to him. you explain that the leather is wanted for people who have no decent boots in england. he says he does not care a rap what you want it for; before you may take it from him you have to buy him off; it is his private property, this leather, and the herd and the land over which the herd ranges. you ask him how much he wants for his leather; and he tells you frankly, just as much as he can induce you to give.

if he chanced to be a person of exceptional sweetness of disposition, you might perhaps argue with him. you might point out to him that this project of giving people splendid boots was a fine one that would put an end to much human misery. he might even sympathise with your generous enthusiasm; but you would, i think, find him adamantine in his resolve to get just as much out of you for his leather as you could with the utmost effort pay.

suppose now you said to him: “but how did you come by this land and these herds, so that you can stand between them and the people who have need of them, exacting this profit?” he would probably either embark upon a long rigmarole, or, what is much more probable, lose his temper and decline to argue. pursuing your doubt as to the rightfulness of his property in these things, you might admit he deserved a certain reasonable fee for the rough care he had taken of the land and herds. but cattle breeders are a rude, violent race; and it is doubtful if you would get far beyond your proposition of a reasonable fee. you would in fact have to buy off this owner of the leather at a good thumping price—he exacting just as much as he could get from you—if you wanted to go on with your project.

well, then you would have to get your leather here; and, to do that, you would have to bring it by railway and ship to this country. and here again you would find people without any desire or intention of helping your project, standing in your course, resolved to make every possible penny out of you on your way to provide sound boots for every one. you would find the railway was private property, and had an owner or owners; you would find the ship was private property, with an owner or owners; and that none of these would be satisfied for a moment with a mere fee adequate to their services. they too would be resolved to make every penny of profit out of you. if you made inquiries about the matter, you would probably find the real owners of railway and ship were companies of shareholders, and that the profit squeezed out of your poor people’s boots at this stage went to fill the pockets of old ladies at torquay, spendthrifts in paris, well-booted gentlemen in london clubs, all sorts of glossy people....

well, you get the leather to england at last; and now you want to make it into boots. you take it to a centre of population, invite workers to come to you, erect sheds and machinery upon a vacant piece of ground, and start off in a sort of fury of generous industry, boot-making.... do you? there comes along an owner for that vacant piece of ground, declares it is his property, demands an enormous sum for rent. and your workers all round you, you find, cannot get house room until they too have paid rent—every inch of the country is somebody’s property, and a man may not shut his eyes for an hour without the consent of some owner or other. and the food your shoemakers eat, the clothes they wear, have all paid tribute and profit to land-owners, cart-owners, house-owners, endless tribute over and over and above the fair pay for work that has been done upon them....

so one might go on. but you begin to see now one set of reasons at least why every one has not good comfortable boots. there could be plenty of leather; and there is certainly plenty of labour and quite enough intelligence in the world to manage that and a thousand other desirable things. but this institution of private property in land and naturally produced things, these obstructive claims that prevent you using ground, or moving material, and that have to be bought out at exorbitant prices, stand in the way. all these owners hang like parasites upon your enterprise at its every stage; and, by the time you get your sound boots well made in england, you will find them costing about a pound a pair—high out of the reach of the general mass of people. and you will perhaps not think me fanciful and extravagant when i confess that when i realise this, and look at poor people’s boots in the street, and see them cracked and misshapen and altogether nasty, i seem to see also a lot of little phantom land-owners, cattle-owners, house-owners, owners of all sorts, swarming over their pinched and weary feet like leeches, taking much and giving nothing, and being the real cause of all such miseries.

now is this a necessary and unavoidable thing?—that is our question. is there no other way of managing things than to let these property-owners exact their claims, and squeeze comfort, pride, happiness, out of the lives of the common run of people? because, of course, it is not only the boots they squeeze into meanness and badness. it is the claim and profit of the land-owner and house-owner that make our houses so ugly, shabby, and dear, that make our roadways and railways so crowded and inconvenient, that sweat our schools, our clothing, our food—boots we took merely by way of one example of a universal trouble.

well, there are a number of people who say there is a better way and that the world could be made infinitely better in all these matters, made happier and better than it ever has been in these respects, by refusing to have private property in all these universally necessary things. they say that it is possible to have the land administered, and such common and needful things as leather produced, and boots manufactured, and no end of other such generally necessary services carried on, not for the private profit of individuals, but for the good of all. they propose that the state should take away the land, and the railways, and shipping, and many great organised enterprises from their owners, who use them simply to squeeze the means for a wasteful private expenditure out of the common mass of men, and should administer all these things, generously and boldly, not for profit, but for service. it is this idea of extracting profit they hold which is the very root of the evil. these are the socialists; and they are the only people who do hold out any hope of far-reaching change that will alter the present dingy state of affairs, of which this painful wretchedness of boots is only one typical symbol.