§ I. The Question of Overpopulation

The question of distribution discussed in the preceding pages is intimately connected with another problem affecting the very existence of socialism—we mean the problem of overpopulation. It is far easier to beget children than to feed them. This truism points to a source of great anxieties to the whole of mankind as well as individual parents, and in not the lowest degree to the future socialist commonwealth.

Even such as do not advocate strict Malthusianism.¹ are nevertheless forced to confess that population is increasing more constantly and quickly than do the provisions necessary for its sustenance. Even outside of socialist circles this fact is pretty generally acknowledged by men of science. G. Rümelin¹ says it is “an indisputable truth that, while on the one hand the human propensity to increase and multiply retains its vigor undiminished from generation to generation, and while the second million is as capable and as anxious to propagate itself as was the first, on the other hand, the same areas will allow their productiveness to be increased in continually diminishing proportions the more cultivation has been already advanced.”

¹ MALTHUS (1766–1834) ascribes to human society the tendency of doubling its number every 25 years, or of increasing in geometrical progression (as 1 to 2, to 4, to 8, to 16, etc.), whilst the supply of victuals is increasing in arithmetical progression (as 1 to 2, to 3, to 4, etc.), equal amounts being added during each period. Therefore if the population were allowed to multiply freely, there would soon be a great disproportion between the population and the means of sustenance. In reality population can never exceed the limits established by the supply of foodstuffs. Therefore the increase is continually checked, and population is kept within the limits of the existing means of sustenance. According to Malthus the causes tending to check overpopulation are partly preventive, partly positive. Among the former are late marriages and celibacy, among the latter starvation, disease, war, infanticide.

Cf. Malthus, Essay on the Principles of Population, 1798.

In the mathematical form given above Malthusianism is pretty generally abandoned; its fundamental idea, however, is still regarded by many as an established result of scientific research. Cf. Devas, Political Economy, pp. 129 sqq.; also R. von Mohl, Geschichte und Literatur der Staatswissenschaften, vol. III. p. 411.

¹ Schönberg’s Handbuch der politischen Oekonomie, vol. II. p. 926.

Therefore, political economists are even now inquiring how the growing danger of overpopulation, i.e., of an increase of population beyond the existing means of sustenance, might be averted. Of course, socialists have not the slightest anxiety on that head. According to Marx and Bebel the problem of overpopulation concerns only capitalist society and has no meaning for the future socialist commonwealth. For, in the first place the distribution of products will then be much more equalized and consequently a far greater number will be sustained, and in the second place the productivity of labor will grow in a wonderful manner, or, as Marx has it, the fountainheads of life will flow more abundantly.

To our mind, this is rank self-deception. Nay more; we maintain that in the socialist state the danger of overpopulation instead of being diminished would be far more threatening than in the existing order of society. Socialism looks upon every new-born child as a “welcome addition” (Bebel) to society, to be reared at the public expense. Moreover there is no restraint on the choice of partners. Men and women may unite whenever and as long as they please. The rearing of their offspring need not bother them; the paternal state takes the children into its care, provides them with food and clothing. This is the socialist family system, as will be explained and proved later on.

What will be the effects of this order of things, where nothing will hinder men from an unbridled indulgence of their strongest passions, since with the free choice . of partners there will be combined freedom from all care for the education of the children? The answer is not far to seek. For the socialist state the Malthusian scale of progression would be too slow; the population would be doubled in much less than twenty-five years. At present many different causes restrict the increase of population. The fear of being unable to support their children prevents many people from marrying, or at least from marrying in early life. Add to this the reluctance of being troubled by too many children and the desire to keep one’s offspring on the same social level and therefore to avoid splitting up the inheritance. Of course, also, in the socialist commonwealth woman would like to shirk the duties of motherhood, but notwithstanding the declarations of the socialist platform she would still be subject to man.

Socialism, however, would do away with all parental anxieties. The offspring would in no way inconvenience the parents; society would receive them as a welcome addition. There would be no more restriction on sexual intercourse. And yet the danger of overpopulation is to be less than at present?

But in the future system the productivity of labor will assume astonishing proportions; there will be an abundance of food for every one. That abundance exists indeed in the imagination of socialist prophets, not however in reality; production would be rather less remunerative, as we have shown above (p. 299 sqq-). But, socialists tell us, the birth of every child is the birth of another laborer. True enough; but also another mouth to be fed. It is absolutely certain that the need of provisions increases with the number of births. Also in the socialist state twenty comrades will need twice as much as ten. But is it equally certain that the means of life will increase at the same rate as population? Rather the contrary. If a country is peopled at present ten times as densely as it was two or three hundred years ago, will the soil on that account yield tenfold returns? The more densely settled and highly cultivated the land, the more difficult and complicated the task is of supplying sufficient food to all its inhabitants.

Now, as long as a state is surrounded by countries less advanced in industry and more sparsely settled, it is enabled to procure the necessary means of existence by importing foodstuffs and exporting industrial products. The difficulty, however, is heightened the more the export countries advance in population and industrial development. This is the case in countries where private ownership and private industries prevail; for a socialist commonwealth in the midst of non-socialist states the difficulty would be insuperable, as will be shown to evidence in the next paragraph.