§ II. Industry and Economy in Socialism

It is a great pity that the gap between dreams and reality cannot be bridged. It is a stern fact that in thickly inhabited and civilized countries the earth is able to nourish its inhabitants only at the price of hard labor and great economy in the use of labor materials. Nor is there any lack of incentive to such economy in the modern social order, as is manifest. The interest of the individual, nay, the very necessity of self-preservation and self-advancement, urges most people to untiring and energetic labor. In the race for gain we need, therefore, a check rather than an incentive; nor is there any great extravagance to be observed in the use of labor means—raw materials, work-tools, machinery, factories, means of transportation, etc. On such economy depends to a great extent the success of all modern enterprises. The great problem to be solved in every private enterprise is how to produce, with the least possible expense of labor, material, and time, the largest quantity of the best and cheapest goods. True, there will be always a number of bunglers and swindlers who will ply their trade; but such will not succeed in the long-run. Fraud will be detected in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred; and if it sometimes succeeds, it is mostly by the fault of credulous or grasping purchasers, and of legislatures and governments which do not use sufficient precaution and vigilance for the prevention of deceit. But how far would diligence and economy in the use of the means of production be practised in the socialistic commonwealth ?

Marx assures us that “in a higher phase of communist development, labor” will be “not only a means of sustaining life, but also a most urgent desire.” Bebel is anxious to outdo his master in the matter of liberal promises. To him it is self-evident “that such an organization of labor, based on perfect freedom and equality, in which one would stand for all, and all for one, would awaken the highest consciousness of solidarity, would beget a spirit of joyous industry and emulation, such as is nowhere to be found in the industrial system of our day. . . . And this spirit would also exert its influence on the productiveness of labor and the perfection of produce.¹ Moreover, each individual and all together, since they labor for one another, have absolutely the same interest that all products should be not only as good and perfect as possible, but also should be produced with the greatest possible promptness, either to save time or to gain time to produce new articles for the satisfaction of higher claims.”²

¹ Die Frau, p. 271.

² Ibid.

However, such promises are but idle talk. For what motive has the member of the socialist state to toil honestly day by day and to use the labor materials economically? Only the smallest part of the fruit of his industry belongs to himself. If we imagine a million members of a socialistic commonwealth, each one reaps one millionth of the proceeds of his labor. And if he is idle, what does it matter? Only one millionth of the production which he neglects to bring forth is lost to him.³

³ The intensity of application to be expected in the socialist state was strikingly illustrated by the printing establishment of Werner, a noted ringleader of Berlin socialists. Because socialists generally abhor piece-work as a means of exploitation, Werner engaged type-setters with a fixed weekly salary of 30 marks ($7.50). But, as Werner declared in a public meeting, the work furnished per day and man was worth sometimes no more than 35 cents. All his admonitions remained unheeded. One of Werner's partners in business once requested the noisy and quarrelsome crowd to moderate their racket, which prevented him from working. In reply the “comrades” shouted the socialist Marseillaise, emphasizing especially the words: “Down with tyranny!” Werner was obliged to introduce piece-work again, and to dismiss two of the chief rioters. This gives us an inkling of the future socialist paradise.—Still more remarkable were the results of the so-called red bakery, established at Berlin by social democrats. The discord among the comrades soon rose to such a pitch that they heaped reproaches on each other's heads and finally dissolved partnership. (Cf. Germania, 1892, n. 154.) On Nov. 30, 1900, the executive board of Berlin had to intervene to stop the scandalous quarrel of the Leipziger Volkszeitung and its socialist employees.

It is not without reason that Carring¹ maintains that the disappearance of private interests in socialism would necessitate the introduction of other motives of action. But what are they to be? Carring replies: ‘The ideal of socialism, the mutual co-operation of brothers, can be realized only by men whose conscience works to perfection.” But only an incorrigible optimist will imagine that the socialists of the future, materialists and atheists as they are sure to be, will have a more delicate conscience than the average proletarian of to-day.

¹ Das Gewissen im Lichte der Geschichte sozialistischer und christlicher Weltanschauung, p. 96.

Even Schäffle, whose appreciation of socialism is rather sympathetic, says:² “It will not be sufficient by itself in a producing community of millions for producer A to feel: My income from my social labor is conditional upon my 999,999 co-operating comrades being as industrious as I. This will not suffice to awaken the necessary reciprocal control; at any rate it will not check the impulse to laziness and to dishonesty, nor hinder men from defrauding the public of their labor-time, nor render impossible a cunning or prejudiced contrivance for the unjust valuation of individual performances. Socialism would have to give the individual at least as strong an interest in the collective work as he has under the liberal system of production—it would have to secure to every sub-group a premium on extraordinary amounts of collective production, and a forfeit for collective slackness; it is as much and still more bound to bestow effective distinction for all the special success in technical development, and duly to reward great individual merit; and finally it would have to provide that all the innumerable labor forces should be directed into the channel of their most profitable use, not by the orders of an authority, but by the force of individual interest.”

² Quintessence, pp. 56, 57.

But in the social commonwealth there would be no private interest. If the state would, according to Schäffle’s opinion, confer distinctions and premiums sufficient to urge the laborer to years of restless toil, great differences in the conditions of life would soon arise and bring envy, jealousy, and discontent in their wake. Besides, such distinctions or premiums cannot consist with the socialistic theory of value.

We have reason to believe that socialism, instead of producing abundance of all necessaries of life with little toil, would soon be forced to lengthen the present work-day in order to prevent famine. According to Engel¹ there was in Prussia in the year 1881 to a population of 26,716,701 a total income of $2,382,676,591.50. In this estimate, however, the income was set onefourth higher than it actually was, as the real estimate was $1,972,386,965.50. Now, if this were equally divided among the population it would leave $89.25 to each person.²

¹ Der Wert des Menschen, 1883.

² According to Richter (Die Irrlehren der Sozialdemokratie, p. 16) the average income in Prussia in 1889–1890 was not quite $75.

According to Soetbeer and Böhmert’s accurate calculations the average income of each person in Prussia was:³

³ Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, article: Einkommen; Böhmert, Die Verteilung des Einkommens in Preussen und Sachsen, p. 32.

For the kingdom of Saxony Robert Meyer gives the following estimate, based upon the income-tax:¹

¹ Handwörterbuch, etc., as above. 2 Ibid.

Böhmert himself estimates the average yearly income in Saxony at $81.85 in 1879, at $110.48 in 1892, and at $117.50 in 1896. In Great Britain and Ireland the average income amounted to $172.50 in 1886 (Soetbeer’s estimate *), and to $180 in 1895 (M. G. Mulhall).

Such is the average income in some of the modern flourishing states, where industry and agriculture are carried on with untiring energy and assiduity. If at present the straining of every available productive force has not resulted in a higher average income, we may expect this income to dwindle down still more in the socialist commonwealth. And what is to happen if the hours of work are reduced? For socialists promise their followers a great reduction in working hours. Bebel thinks that two or three hours of work will suffice. Of course, the more liberal the promise the more easily it will find favor with the laboring classes, who would see little use in the whole emancipation movement and its grandiloquent prophecies, if in the socialist state as much work and exertion would be required as at present.

Let us suppose, therefore, that the working time of miners is reduced to four hours a day. In consequence the number of laborers will have to be practically doubled. Where formerly one hundred thousand miners were employed in a coal district there will now be need of two hundred thousand. The same will be the case in the smelting works and factories, on the farm and in the garden, in the composingroom and at the press, with the tailors, butchers, and bakers, in railroads, steamships, and cartage. Will there be labor forces at all sufficient to provide for even the most necessary means of subsistence?¹

¹ Atlanticus (Ein Blick in den Zukunftsstaat) calculates in detail how great a saving will be effected by the most approved technical installations and by a systematic regulation of production. As if men would submit to this systematic regulation and be as diligent and saving of material in the service of society as they are at present in the service of self-interest! It is the old mistake of abstracting from the real nature of men and substituting some chimerical ideal. And besides, the best technical appliances and the most systematic regulation obtain already in all first-class establishments. How can it, then, be possible to reduce the working time and still to need fewer laborers?

Of course, socialists loudly proclaim that the lazy drones encumbering present society will in future be forced to take part in the productive labor. But hence we can only conclude that collectivism precludes freedom of choice in one’s avocation, not however that the quantity of work to be allotted to each one will be diminished.

Moreover, the number of idlers is not so considerable as socialists would have us believe. On this point there is a good deal of contradiction in socialist writings. Where there is question of the present distribution of property the number of owners is represented as ridiculously small—“the upper ten thousand.” But since the sluggards can be found only among property owners, also their number can accordingly not be very great. How does this tally with other passages of the same writings where the number of idle drones assumes colossal proportions? Socialists may of course object that in their system many occupations, as bankers, stock-brokers, jobbers, etc., would become superfluous. This is true to a certain degree. But it is not to be overlooked that much of the work done by these men would be necessary also in the socialist state. Besides a number of new offices would have to be created in order to ascertain the demand, regulate production, issue labor certificates, transport and distribute the labor products. It is easy saying. Everything is to be regulated systematically; the actual organization however, requires more men than is commonly believed, especially if, in accordance with socialist ideals, the officials are to work but a few hours a day.

Not a few socialists, and also Schäffle, build great hopes upon the mutual supervision and control of the laborers. But such supposition is in many cases impossible, especially if several should unite together in a league of idleness. But where such supervision would be actuated, as in workshops of limited extent, it would necessarily lead to a regular system of petty surveillance and espionage. We have striking illustrations of the truth of this statement in the case of the national workshops erected at the public expense in 1848 at the suggestion of Louis Blanc. In a tailor’s shop there was introduced, instead of payment by the piece, payment by the day, in the hope that mutual supervision would incite the laborers to diligence. But soon this mutual supervision degenerated into an invidious and petty espionage, and brought about so many bitter reproaches and quarrels that it was soon found necessary to return to the old system of payment by the piece in order to restore order and harmony among the workmen.¹

¹ Leroy-Beaulieu, Le Collectivisme, p. 354.