large/7264/free_press_1206_librivox_64kb_mp3/freepress_07_belloc_64kb_16
large/7264/free_press_1206_librivox_64kb_mp3/freepress_07_belloc_64kb
English
7264
The little flash in the pan of Chinese Labour was, I think, even more remarkable. The Press not only had word from the twin Party Machines (with which it was then allied for the purposes of power) to boycott the Chinese Labour agitation rigidly, but it was manifestly to the interest of all the Capitalist Newspaper Proprietors to boycott it, and boycott it they did  as long as they could. THE LITTLE FLASH IN THE PAN OF CHINESE LABOR WAS I THINK EVEN MORE REMARKABLE THE PRESS NOT ONLY HAD WORD FROM THE TWIN PARTY MACHINES WITH WHICH IT WAS THEN ALLIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF POWER TO BOYCOT CHINESE LABOR AGITATION RIGIDLY BUT IT WAS MANIFESTLY TO THE INTEREST OF ALL THE CAPITALIST NEWSPAPER PROPRIETORS TO BOYCOTT AND BOYCOTT IT THEY DID AS LONG AS THEY COULD
ivism in favour of forced labour--yet we may be certain that a Capitalist paper would not have discussed them at all, still less have supported them, unless it had been compelled. The newspapers simply _could_ not ignore Socialism at a time when Socialism still commanded a really strong body of opinion among the wealthy. It was the same with the Suffrage for Women, which cry a clique of wealthy ladies got up in London. I have never myself quite understood why these wealthy ladies wanted such an absurdity as the modern franchise, or why they so blindly hated the Christian institution of the Family. I suppose it was some perversion. But, anyhow, they displayed great sincerity, enthusiasm, and devotion, suffering many things for their cause, and acting in the only way which is at all practical in our plutocracy--to wit, by making their fellow-rich exceedingly uncomfortable. You may say that no one newspaper took up the cause, but, at least, it was not boycotted. It was actively discussed. IETY HAS ITSELF ABANDONED COLLECTIVISM IN FAVOR OF FORCED LABOUR YET WE MAY BE CERTAIN THAT A CAPITALIST PAPER WOULD NOT HAVE DISCUSSED THEM AT ALL STILL LESS HAVE SUPPORTED THEM UNLESS IT HAD BEEN COMPELLED THE NEWSPAPERS SIMPLY COULD NOT IGNORE SOCIALISM AT A TIME WHEN SOCIALISM STILL COMMANDED A REALLY STRONG BODY OF OPINION AMONG THE WEALTHY IT WAS THE SAME WITH THE SUFFRAGE FOR WOMEN WHICH CRY A CLICK OF WEALTHY LADIES GOT UP IN LONDON I HAVE NEVER MYSELF QUITE UNDERSTOOD WHY THESE WEALTHY LADIES WANTED SUCH AN ABSURDITY AS THE MODERN FRANCHISE OR WHY THEY SO BLINDLY HATED THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONAL FAMILY I SUPPOSE IT WAS SOME PERVERSION BUT ANYHOW THEY DISPLAYED GREAT SINCERITY ENTHUSIASM AND DEVOTION SUFFERING MANY THINGS FOR THEIR CAUSE AND ACTING IN THE ONLY WAY WHICH IS AT ALL PRACTICAL IN OUR PLUTOCRACY TO WIT BY MAKING THEIR FELLOW RICH EXCEEDINGLY UNCOMFORTABLE YOU MAY SAY THAT NO ONE NEWSPAPER TOOK UP THE CAUSE BUT AT LEAST IT WAS NOT BOYCOTTED IT WAS ACTIVELY DISCUSSED
large/7264/free_press_1206_librivox_64kb_mp3/freepress_07_belloc_64kb
file
download/librilight/large/7264/free_press_1206_librivox_64kb_mp3/freepress_07_belloc_64kb.flac