§ I. Socialization of Productive Goods

Socialists intend to make all means of labor, the “sources of life,” as Marx terms them, not only the soil, but also manufactories, machinery, raw materials, work-tools, the exclusive property of the entire community. One of their chief demands is “the conversion of all labor materials into the common property of society.”¹ Only consumable articles or such as are immediately destined for use shall, as the remuneration for labor performed, become private property. But here grave misgivings at once present themselves.

¹ Cf. above, p. 245, sqq.

1. Must the time be awaited when all proprietors will of their own accord give up their estates in behalf of society? That time will surely never come. Or will socialists make short work of it and bring about socialization by main force? “It is nonsense,” Bebel said to a meeting of workingmen at Bamberg, Sept. 24, 1902, “if you are told that we wish to change present conditions by force.” But let us suppose that violence is resorted to after all, will not the proprietors, especially the farmers, take up arms and repel violence by violence? “The expropriators will be expropriated.” This is easily said, but not easily done. Will not the final result be a revolution that will overthrow the whole social fabric and whose clinching argument will be the guillotine?

2. Are the present owners to be indemnified? If they are not, then it will be only because private property is looked upon as unjust. But how can socialists substantiate this allegation, since many of them have abandoned Marx’s theory of value as worthless? If the owners are to be indemnified, whence will be derived the immense funds necessary for that purpose? Will the new socialist society take upon itself this crushing burden although the benefits will accrue only to later generations?

3. But let us assume for the moment that the whole process is carried on smoothly and “according to programme.” We are then confronted by the next question: What is meant by productive goods, and what are consumable goods? Both these kinds of goods may well be distinguished in the mind. But as soon as we put the question in the concrete, whether this or that article is productive or only consumable, the difficulty becomes manifest. Many objects may be either productive and useful or consumable, according to the end for which the possessor wishes to employ them. A garden, for instance, is a useful object; it yields the possessor fruits, affords him the facility of taking exercise and fresh air and enjoying the beauty and fragrance of its flowers and the shade of its trees; but the fruits and vegetables which it produces may also be sent to the market either in their primitive state or prepared and preserved, and thus rendered of still higher value. The same may be said of a house, a horse, a carriage, or of any article of furniture or of domestic use. Needles and thread and sewing-machines are articles of immediate use in a family; but they may also be used by the tailor or dressmaker to make clothes for others, and thus they become productive.¹

¹ Cf. Leroy-Beaulieu, Le Collectivisme, p. 13 sqq.

Now, are all those articles of use to become common property? If so, every individual would be dependent upon the community even in the most trivial matters. Domestic life with mutual services would be a thing impossible. The only way out of the difficulty would be that such objects of use which might be also serviceable for production would be left to individuals with a legal injunction not to employ them for productive purposes, but only for their own private use.² Such an arrangement, however, would necessarily lead to a most extensive and minute police supervision, and give occasion to endless frauds. Let us suppose, for instance, that an orchard is given to the father of a family for his own use, with the strict injunction not to use the fruit for any other purpose, but to deliver the surplus to the public magazines. How much of the fruit would be delivered to the community? Would the possessor in that case deal economically with the produce of his garden? Would he keep it in good condition and endeavor to improve it? Would he not be inclined secretly to donate or to sell what he could not use for himself?

² Paulsen (System der Ethik, vol. I. p. 407) is of opinion that not only furniture, works of art, ornaments, and books, but also houses and gardens, might remain private property, “with all the effects peculiar to private ownership—with the right to bequeath and to donate, to consume and to preserve, to sell and to lend them.” However, this would manifestly demolish the entire system of socialism. This freedom would enable private individuals to acquire extensive property by the purchase, inheritance, or donation of houses, gardens, and other rentable property, and finally to come to such wealth and independence as to live on their income—which is hardly consistent with the socialistic scheme. A socialist might urge in favor of Paulsen’s theory that houses, gardens, etc., might be safely allowed to pass into private hands, because in a system in which all parties are daily employed in production and are forced to earn the necessaries of life no one would care for further income. However, this supposition is untrue. Wealth would also in a socialistic state lead to power and influence, and would therefore not be looked upon with indifference. And besides, what motives could influence a man to work if he could live on his income? Would it not be necessary, then, to use violent measures in order to make him work? But would not such force bring about the most unbearable slavery? If socialism would pretend to succeed, it cannot be satisfied with half-measures; it must remain consistent in its demands.

4. What is to be done with articles of value which are utterly unproductive, with objects of art, with diamonds, pearls, all kinds of ornaments? Are all women supposed to lay their jewelry upon the altars of their country, and to use the working-apron as their sole adornment? But why do we ask this? We have forgotten that vanity and love of finery will be unknown in the socialist future. Even the daughters of Eve will find their only delight in strenuous labor for the common weal!