§ II. Main Features of the Socialist Commonwealth

Despite their evasions socialists have time and again laid down and officially proclaimed certain fundamental tenets concerning the future organization of society, from which it is possible to sketch the general features of the future collectivist system. ‘As to their main features, our projects for the future may be ascertained at any time in our existing literature.”¹ And in fact the principal characteristics of future collectivism are indicated clearly enough for a reasonable verdict about its practicability.

¹ Bebel in the Reichstag, Jan. 31, 1893.

1. The Erfurt platform says that the growing number of crises gives proof “that private property in the means of production has become incompatible with their proper utilization and full development. .. . Only the transformation of private capitalistic property in the means of production—i.e., land, mines and mining, raw material, tools, machinery, means of communication—into common property and the change of private production into socialistic—i.e., production for and through society—can effect that the extensive industry and ever-increasing productiveness of social labor shall become for the exploited classes, instead of a source of misery and oppression, a source of the highest prosperity and of universal and harmonious perfection.”

Thereby the foundations of existing society are overthrown, class supremacy and the classes themselves are abolished, consequently also “the exploitation and oppression of the laboring class,” in fact “every kind of exploitation and oppression, no matter against what class, party, race, or sex,’”’ are removed.

In the above sentences are contained the following demands:

(a) Transfer of the means of production into collective ownership, therefore abolition of private property in all the means of production.”¹

¹ In the election proclamation of April 30, 1903, signed by all the socialist members of the Reichstag, we read: “Our aim is the introduction of the socialist system of state and society based on collective ownership in the means of production and on the common duty of all to work.”

Whether the change to collective ownership is to be brought about suddenly or gradually, by peaceful means or by violence, with or without compensation to the expropriated, is beside the question. We insist on this purposely, because in his notes on the Erfurt platform Kautsky² maintains “The transition to the socialist system does not at all imply the expropriation of artisans and peasants.” This is a mere lawyer’s trick to divert attention from the main point at issue. For it is quite evident that there is question here only of the time and manner of the transition, since two pages further back Kautsky confesses: “Production on a small scale is doomed to destruction”; nay, he even maintains that socialism hastens the absorption of small establishments by industry on a colossal scale. The truth about this general absorption of establishments will be found above (p. 158 sqq.). It is interesting to note how Kautsky, in the same breath, promises the amelioration of the farmers’ condition by means of socialism, and speaks of the inevitable disappearance of independent farmers. But Kautsky must be more than naive if he imagines that in spite of the promised improvements the peasants will gladly consent to the transition from private production to collective production on a large scale, merely on account of the attraction exercised by the higher forms of production on the lower ones. It will be a cold day when the peasant will voluntarily give up his small property in order to take out a policy in the General Socialist Happiness Insurance Company.

² Das Erfurter Programm in seinem grundsätzlichen Teil erläutert, p. 150.

The platform of the Socialist Party of the United States also “declares its aim to be the organization of the working classes . . . for the purpose of transforming the present system of private ownership of the means of production and distribution into collective ownership by the entire people.” And again we are told that “the same economic causes which developed capitalism are leading to socialism, which will abolish both the capitalist class and the class of wage-workers.”¹

¹ Cf. above, p. 90 sqq.

The International Socialist convention at Paris (Sept. 1900) put up as condition for membership the admission of the “essential principles” of socialism. Among them there is in the first place “the socialization of the means of production and distribution.”²

² Cf. p. 110. Concerning Austrian socialists, cf. p. 110.

The N. Y. Volkszeitung (Jubilee ed., February 21, 1903, p. 29) presents the Principles of Socialism in seventeen different languages. In English they are as follows: The Socialist Party of the United States reaffirms its allegiance to the revolutionary principles of international socialism, and declares the supreme political issue in America to-day to be the contest between the working class and the capitalist class for the powers of government. We affirm our steadfast purpose to use those powers, once achieved, to destroy the institution of private property in the means of production and distribution, and to establish the Co-operative Commonwealth.

(b) Society as a whole manages production according to a uniform plan. This postulate is contained in the words, “ change of private production into socialistic, i.e., for and through society.” It is contained also in the reason given for this change. The Erfurt platform maintains that in consequence of economic developments “the productive forces. . . have become uncontrollable by society, and that private property in the means of production has become incompatible with their proper utilization and full development.”

Therefore society at large (the state) is to regulate the proper application of the means of production and to manage and supervise the whole field of industry.

c. The national product, i.e., whatever has been produced collectively, belongs to society at large. After abstracting what is necessary for society taken collectively, the rest of the product is to be distributed among the single members. For, according to the platform, also of American socialists, only the means of production are to become collective property. All articles of consumption are therefore to be distributed and to become private property. The Erfurt platform also makes complaint that in the present system, despite “the gigantic increase of the productiveness of human labor,” the advantages of production are “monopolized.” Therefore the socialist system must produce a change also in this respect, so that all may have not only equal duties but also equal rights without distinction of sex or pedigree. There will be no more distinction of classes; “the ever-increasing productiveness of social labor” will be in future “a source of the highest prosperity and of universal and harmonious perfection.”

2. The plans for the future embodied in the Erfurt platform as well as in that of the Socialist Party of the United States are but repetitions of the ideas of the Grand Master of Socialism. What Marx thought about the essential features of collectivist society may be gathered from the passages quoted above (p. 54 sq.) especially from the more extensive quotation from “Capital” given in the footnote. Although Marx speaks there of collective production only by way of illustration, yet a comparison with p. 728 of the same work and with his ‘Criticism of the Social Democratic Platform” will prove that he had in mind the socialist system of the future.

Marx demands, in the first place, common ownership of all the means of production, systematic organization of labor, or, as he styles it, “the many individual forces are consciously expended as one social labor power.” Then he continues: “The total product of the union will be a co-operative product. A certain part of it has to serve again as means of production and will remain common property. The other part will be for the consumption of the members. Therefore it must be distributed. The manner of distribution will vary according to the special organism of co-operative production and according to the corresponding degree of development in the producers. Only as a parallel to the production of merchandise do we presuppose that each producer’s share will be determined by the time of his work. The time of work will therefore play a double part, On the one hand its distribution on a co-operative plan will maintain the right proportion between the different functions of labor and the different requirements of the community. On the other hand the time of work will serve for measuring the share of the individual producer in the co-operative labor and in that part of the common product destined for individual consumption.” A careful comparison of this passage with others quoted above, and especially with the “Criticism of the Social Democratic Platform,” will show that the method of work and the manner of distributing the product here described are just what Marx assigns to the “first phase of communist society.”

It is self-evident that Engels agrees on this point with his friend and mentor. Still it may not be amiss to cite some passages from his writings where the same ideas are clearly expressed.

According to his description of the process of evolution leading up to the new order of society, the commonwealth will abolish private production “by taking possession of the means of production.” “The anarchy within collectivist production will be replaced by a conscious organization on a well-planned system.” “The manner of production, appropriation, and exchange will be put in harmony with the collectivist character of the means of production.” “Collective possession of the means of production will remove not only the present artificial restraints, but also the positive squandering and destruction of productive forces and of products... . Moreover, it will make available for society at large a mass of productive forces and of products by abolishing the senseless and wasteful luxuries of the present ruling classes... . Now for the first time there exists the possibility of assuring, by means of collective production, to every member of society an existence which is not only well supplied in material respects, in ever-growing abundance, but which also guarantees to the citizens the complete development and utilization of their civic and intellectual gifts.”¹

¹ Engels, Dührings Umwälzung, etc., p. 270.

In a pamphlet on the nature and aims of socialism² Liebknecht expounds the socialist plans in the following manner: “Down with the wage-system! this is the fundamental demand of socialism. . . . In place of wage labor and class supremacy we must have social labor (co-operative production). The instruments of labor must cease to be monopolized by a certain class, they must become the common property of all. No more exploiters and no more exploited. Regulation of the production and distribution of products on behalf of society at large. Abolition of existing commerce, which is no better than fraud. In the order of equality every laborer is to take part in the work necessary for all the members of the commonwealth. Instead of employers and their . . . wage-slaves . . . free comrades. Labor painful to no one because: the duty of all (!). An existence worthy of man for every one who does his duty to society. . . . And that all this may be realized (there must be) the democratic state, ... a state which is a society organized on the principles of reason and justice, a general insurance company of happiness and culture, a fraternal community of freemen and equals.” Social democracy, he explains further on, “demands order, . . . peace and harmony of interests, abolition of the classes;. . . it demands ownership for all; it demands . . . for the workingman the full product of his social labor; ... it demands equal and the best obtainable education for each individual, . . . perfect political and social equality of women and men. ”

² Was die Sozialdemokraten sind und was sie wollen (1891), p. 18.

Essentially the same plans for the future are met with in the writings of all the socialists who have ever expatiated on the aims of their party. Thus Bebel,¹ J. Stern,² K. Kautsky,³ who is styled by Volkmar “the theorist of socialism,” O. Köhler, Weilgert, and others. Bebel protests indeed that he proposes no more than his own personal opinions, but considering the high regard which is paid to him in socialist circles, his views may be looked upon as the common property of the rank and file of German socialists and of many others beyond the boundaries of the empire. But as we shall have numerous occasions, in our criticism of the socialist plans, to revert to Bebel’s opinions, we may spare ourselves the trouble of rehearsing them in this place.

¹ Especially in his books: Unsere Ziele (6th ed., 1886); Die Frau (18th ed., 1893).

² Thesen über den Sozialismus, 1890.

³ “Das Erfurter Programm in seinem grundsätzlichen Teil erläutert.” The official Erfurt platform was drafted by Kautsky. In another work, “Grundsätze und Forderungen der Sozialdemokratie,” p. 26, he says: “The ultimate goal of evolution ... is the union of all industrial establishments into one colossal state industry, i.e., the transformation of the state into one industrial society. Capitalist production ceases and a new method of production is developed, based on the collective ownership of the means of production.” Cf. also Kautsky, “The Social Revolution,” Kerr & Co., Chicago.

To complete our present disquisition we might appeal to the authority of A. Schäffle,¹ Ad. Wagner, Fr. Hitze, and other prominent sociologists, who, as the result of a careful study of socialist writings, have arrived at the same conclusions as ourselves concerning the future commonwealth. But what has been said may suffice for the present.

¹ Quintessence of Socialism. This book is advertised thus by the above-mentioned Chicago socialist publishing house:

“This work is by an opponent of socialism, but an opponent who is unusually fair as well as able. It is one of the best answers that can be found to the thousand and one objections to socialism that are based on nothing but ignorance or falsehood.”

Later on Schäffle himself refuted the concessions made in the Quintessence in favor of socialism by publishing another work: Die Aussichtslosigkeit des Sozialismus (Impracticability of Socialism).

Yet it will be necessary here to enter more fully upon one feature which is of the greatest importance for our future inquiry—the appropriation of all means of production by the state. It is erroneous to maintain that socialism would leave to separate communities or groups of laborers the possession of the means of labor and the organization of labor. That would be anarchism or communism, but not socialism in its genuine sense. The chief plank in the platform of modern socialism is the abolition of what it calls the anarchy of production, which it regards as the root of all social evils, and the institution of a systematic scheme of production. But this end can be attained only if the entire state is the proprietor of all labor materials, the distributor of labor and of its proceeds. This scheme does not necessarily exclude the existence, in the socialistic order, of guilds or labor unions, communes, districts, etc., as members of its hierarchical order. But, in any case, a strict subordination of these various orders under one supreme state authority is regarded as essential.

If the ownership of all labor means and, consequently, of the proceeds of labor, and the organization of labor itself, would be left to separate communities, so that they could produce what they chose and as much as they pleased, our present competition would not be abolished, but only raised to a different level. Instead of the private capitalists we should then have the communities as competitors. Therefore the anarchy of production would remain in full force; and a mistake committed in the system of production would only be the more detrimental, as it would not then affect private individuals only, but entire communities. One community could in that case, by intelligence, industry, and favorable circumstances, acquire immense riches, while another might fall into a state of utter wretchedness; and if every community should be industrially independent, and if communal property should exist, would every individual of the community then be free to leave his own community and betake himself to another? And if so, is another community obliged to receive and to tolerate strangers? If such liberty and independence should not exist, we would have a condition of perfect slavery; if it did exist, then a systematic control of labor would be impossible, since it could not be ascertained at any time what labor power would be at the disposal of the community. The better-conditioned communities would be deluged, while the less prosperous would be deserted.

Besides, the individual groups could not possibly each produce all its own necessaries, and would be, in consequence, obliged to enter into commercial relations with the neighboring communities or with foreign countries. Would this circumstance not lead to endless quarrels between communities, and produce a condition of universal warfare? Would not then the more powerful, that is, the richer, communities obtain political ascendency, and thus subject the democracy to their own aristocratic rule? Socialists sometimes speak of a union or federation of the communities as a remedy against such results. But if the several communities were industrially independent of one another, and possessed private property, such a federation would be short-lived. As in ancient Greece, the different communities would carry on a continual struggle for the supremacy; and finally the weaker communities would succumb to the stronger. And who should divide the produce among the different communities? Could such a division be made to the satisfaction of all?

We believe, therefore, that an organization in which the several communities would be industrially independent of one another, and would possess communal property, has never been seriously thought of by modern socialists. And, in fact, the great leaders of socialism do not favor such a division of the national industrial system. According to their plans, the socialist state is to take the place of our modern states; and the place of monarchs and cabinets is to be occupied by a central committee, which is to direct the entire industrial system. True, Engels, Bebel, and other socialists do not wish to call this democratic magistracy a “government,” nor do they wish their organization to be called a “state.” They believe that this central committee need only devise the mechanism of production and set it in motion, and the entire extensive machine will move spontaneously in the most harmonious order. But, though we might admit the possibility of such an improbable fact, it remains true that socialists aim at a central organization of industry, at a united, orderly, independent commonwealth of the average area of our present states, and such a commonwealth is no more nor less than a state.

Hence Schäffle¹ seems truly to have characterized socialism in the following passage: “The only system of socialism imaginable is, and will continue to be, central organization, universal and exclusive collective production by the social democracy.” “It must be clearly borne in mind that socialistic production involves, as an axiomatic necessity, a single or united organization. What shape this organization would take, whether centralized or federal, whether absolute or democratic, . . . need not now be considered. . . . But every socialist must necessarily insist on the necessity of a social, and hence of a unified, system, i.e., on the union in one management, with a definite purpose, of the process of production as such. The anarchy of individualistic competition is, according to his premises, the source of all the evils, all the swindling and disorganization, all the fluctuation, exploitation, and injustice of the present system. The socialist state will not be realized till there remains only collective property in the instruments of social production.”²

¹ Aussichtslosigkeit der Socialdemocratie, p. 5.

² Quintessence, pp. 61, 62.

The following pen-picture of the socialistic state ready-made has been drawn by Franz Hitze: ‘The state is the only proprietor of all means of labor—of all lands, all manufactories, all means of transportation, all labor tools, all commerce, and perhaps also of all schools. At the head of the organization stands a perfect democratic government to be chosen by the people, say every two years; this government culminates in a committee, perhaps in a president. The committee has the administration of the entire state; not only the political (legislative, executive, judicial), but also the control of the entire production, of the entire distribution, of the entire consumption (at least in its more general aspect, e.g., how much is to be deducted from consumption in favor of production, etc.). Although labor may be entrusted to the direction of subcommittees and departments, yet there must always be one comprehensive, supreme, and decisive authority. Under this central authority are the provincial departments and communal bureaus, which discharge the same functions in behalf of their several districts as the central committee in behalf of the state; but all these must be subordinate to the supreme central board.”³

³ Hitze, Kapital und Arbeit (1880), p. 286. Cf. Todt, Der Radikale deutsche Socialismus (1878), p. 218. Stern, Thesen, p. 8.

Similarly, Adolf Wagner:¹ ‘If socialists wish to be consistent, they cannot leave to the several communities communal property either in capital or in land, and must have recourse to an effective coercive control by one supreme central authority for the estimation and application of the national capital. Capital as well as land must be the property of the entire state.”

¹ Grundlegung, p. 614.

Rudolf Meyer² characterizes as an essential feature of socialism the demand that ‘production established on a social basis be regulated and controlled by the state.”

² Emancipationskampf des vierten Standes, p. 78.