When I was editing “The Fortnightly Review,” Oscar Wilde wrote for me “The Soul of Man Under Socialism.”  On reading it then it seemed to me that he knew very little about Socialism and I disliked his airy way of dealing with a religion he hadn’t taken the trouble to fathom.  The essay now appears to me in a somewhat different light.  Oscar had no deep understanding of Socialism, it is true, much less of the fact that in a healthy body corporate socialism or co-operation would govern all public utilities and public services while the individual would be left in possession of all such industries as his activity can control.

But Oscar’s genius was such that as soon as he had stated one side of the problem he felt that the other side had to be considered and so we get from him if not the ideal of an ordered state at least apercus of astounding truth and value.

For example he writes:  “Socialism ... by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community.”

Then comes the return on himself:  “But for the full development of Life ... something more is needed.  What is needed is Individualism.”

And the ideal is always implicit:  “Private property has led Individualism entirely astray.  It has made gain not growth its aim.”

Humor too is never far away:  “Only one class thinks more about money than the rich and that is the poor.”

His short stay in the United States also benefited him....  “Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.  It has been found out.”

Taken all in all a provocative delightful essay which like Salome in the aesthetic field marks the end of his Lehrjahre and the beginning of his work as a master.

A LAST WORD

In the couple of years that have elapsed since the first edition of this book was published, I have received many letters from readers asking for information about Wilde which I have omitted to give.  I have been threatened with prosecution and must not speak plainly; but something may be said in answer to those who contend that Oscar might have brought forward weightier arguments in his defence than are to be found in Chapter XXIV.  As a matter of fact I have made him more persuasive than he was.  When Oscar declared (as recorded on page 496) that his weakness was “consistent with the highest ideal of humanity if not a characteristic of it,” I asked him:  “would he make the same defence for the Lesbians?” He turned aside showing the utmost disgust in face and words, thus in my opinion giving his whole case away.

He could have made a better defence.  He might have said that as we often eat or drink or smoke for pleasure, so we may indulge in other sensualities.  If he had argued that his sin was comparatively venial and so personal-peculiar that it carried with it no temptation to the normal man, I should not have disputed his point.