§ II. Mode of Determining the Social Demand

Let us suppose for the moment that the distinction between consumable and productive goods were sufficiently established, and that all means of production were “socialized,” or placed in the possession of the community at large. Now it remains to regulate the national production. The Erfurt platform speaks plainly of the “change of private production into socialistic, ie., production for and through society.” This is quite in accordance with the ideas of K. Marx expounded above (p. 248 sqq.) and of Fr. Engels.¹ But such a regulation can be effected only after the average social demand has been estimated; for the satisfaction of the social demand is the object and, at the same time, the standard by which the extent of production is to be determined. The social demand must therefore be ascertained by daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly statistical estimates.

¹ According to Engels (Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus, etc., p. 48) “social production according to a predetermined plan'’ becomes possible after the proletariat, by using the public powers, shall have transformed all the means of production into public property.

Some one may think perhaps that such estimates would be superfluous; that we might simply take the present rate of consumption as the basis of the socialistic production. But granting even that the present rate of consumption could be statistically established in detail, which, however, is hardly possible, it would by no means serve as the standard of production in a socialist state, since it is the result of the present state of property and production. It supposes, on the one hand, large incomes on the side of capital and, on the other hand, small incomes on the side of labor; it supposes particularly the wage or service system, and is based on the condition of private production. Therefore, as Adolf Wagner¹ justly remarks: “The consumption of our day is the result of the present distribution of income and property, and of private rents arising from real estate and capital. A statistic calculation, therefore, based upon the present conditions would be insufficient.” Much less can we suppose that the supreme authority in the socialist state would simply fix the demand in regard to quality and quantity of the products by a peremptory order, and thus determine the amount and kind of production. Such an action would, absolutely speaking, be possible; but, to say nothing of the fact that it would be inconsistent with the democratic organization of socialism, it would be in itself unmitigated tyranny; for freedom consists, above all things, in the liberty to determine of one’s self the conditions of one’s life in regard to food, clothing, housing, recreation, means of mental improvement, etc. He who cannot use his free choice in these matters, but must follow the dictates of higher authority, is a slave, though he may be called a ‘free comrade.” Freedom in the determination of one’s own wants is also the necessary condition of all progress and culture.¹

¹ Grundlegung, 3d ed., part II, § 1–4.

¹ Also Schäffle (Quintessence, p. 40) remarks: “Freedom of demand is a first essential of freedom in general. If the means of life and culture were somehow allotted to each from without, and according to an officially drawn-up scheme, no one could live out his own individuality or develop himself according to his own ideas; the material basis of freedom would be lost. It is therefore important to determine whether or not socialism would annul individual freedom of demand. If it would, it is dangerous to liberty, opposed to the growth of individuality, and hence to that of moral culture generally, and has no prospect of satisfying the most unconquerable instincts of man.”

Let us suppose, then, that it was theoretically left to the choice of each to determine his own demands —we say theoretically, for practically this freedom would be limited by want of sufficient income. Also the factory laborer of to-day is theoretically free to determine his own wants; but practically this freedom is greatly limited by his income. This would be the case also in the socialist state; for no one would have any other income than the proceeds of his labor. Socialists, it is true, do not fail to hold out grand prospects to the laborer. J. Stern² assures us that in the socialist state “all would possess all things in abundance, to their heart’s content,’ and characterizes as “Philistines” those who refuse to give him credence. However, we are not inclined to believe in such a multiplication of loaves and fishes. But we shall have occasion hereafter to submit this point to a fuller examination. Besides, the chief representatives of socialism themselves seem to entertain some misgiving in regard to such a miracle. Bebel,¹ at least, frankly confesses that “luxury will cease;” but he adds, “poverty and starvation also.” When all shall have nearly the same income, it is greatly to be feared that the pittance will turn out rather meagre. In another passage Bebel² says that the determination of the demands will be an easy matter, ‘because objects of luxury which are nowadays purchased only by the minority will come into disuse,” and “the community will have to decide in how far demands are to be satisfied by new productions.”

² Thesen, p. 28.

¹ Unsere Ziele, p. 30.

² Ibid., p. 31.

By these words is sufficiently implied, consistently with the principles of socialism, that each one will obtain only those necessaries which the community at large will agree to produce. Production, of course, depends in its quantity and quality upon the articles in demand. New demands also require new means of production. Will every one, then, be at liberty to order for his own use new objects which require new industrial arrangements, and consequently involve an increase of the common labor? But if the community at large or its representatives should have first to decide whether the wishes of individual members are to be gratified or not, the freedom of determining the demands is thereby all but destroyed.

Still more oppressive than this restriction of personal freedom would be the burden imposed upon every family—for we suppose in the mean time that in the socialist state the family would still continue to exist—to manifest all its wants in advance and have them registered by the officials appointed for this purpose. In order to know what and how much of every commodity should be produced, and in order to make out the plan of production, it must first be ascertained what each one needs and demands. Therefore, husband and wife, or perhaps both, must report all their wants and wishes, small as well as great, to the respective officials at the bureau of consumption, in order that they may at the specified time be able, on presenting their labor certificates, to draw the desired articles from the public magazines.

Not to make ridiculous suppositions in reference to the socialist state, we shall admit that a certain supply of the more ordinary articles of daily use is kept on hand, so that each one can, on presenting his labor certificate, draw the ordinary necessaries from the public stores. This scheme, however, could be employed only in regard to the most common articles of daily use. Now, if our present system of production, which always endeavors to be ready to meet all demands, cannot have sufficient supplies of all articles in demand, at all times and in all places, this would be all the more impossible in the socialist state; or such a state would necessarily fall into the same error of which it accuses our present system of production—that is, it would produce at haphazard a huge quantity of goods which would lie idle and unconsumed in the state or communal storehouse.

J. Stern, with surprising naivete, is of opinion that in the socialist state there is no need of determining the demand because everything will be furnished in the most lavish profusion.

The exposition of Stern is simply astonishing when he comes to describe the distribution of produce. Every one who can show that he has performed a certain amount of labor has the most unlimited right to any species of consumable goods in any quantity he may choose to fix. He draws his clothing from the public stores, he dines at the public hotel on what he pleases; or, if he prefers, he may dine at home in a highly comfortable residence, which is in communication with the public hotels (by telephone, pneumatic tube, and by whatever other inventions may be made in the mean time), whence he may in the most convenient way [per tube?] order his meals, just as he pleases; or, if he prefers, he may have them prepared at home [by whom?]; or he may prepare them himself. (Thesen, pp. 12, 13.)

Such a description may, in fact, gladden the heart of a credulous socialist. With a minimum of work-time he may enjoy himself to the full. He will see before him fountains of sack, champagne, Bavarian beer, and cognac, from which every workingman may quench his thirst at pleasure. He will sit at tables laden with the most delicate viands. With contempt he will look back upon the days of brown bread and potatoes. Having -eaten and drunk to his heart’s content, the workingman will go to the theatre or concert, or will drive out in a fine equipage until, late at night, tired of enjoyment, he will retire to rest upon his soft couch. Stern, however, has forgotten one thing. Who will procure and prepare all these dainties? Who will wait upon his socialistic lordship? Who will perform for him in the theatres and concerts? Who will saddle or harness his steeds, and act as his groom? Stern, it is true, revels in the prospects of great inventions in the field of electricity. But does he really imagine that electricity will be made so serviceable as finally to prepare and serve his dinner to the socialist, to fit out his residence for him, and to give him a theatrical performance? And then how can all these good things be procured and prepared in such quantities that each one with the minimum of labor may obtain the maximum of enjoyment? It is truly amazing how Stern rehearses all these foolish dreams with such a show of conviction. And yet, if any one refuses him credence, he does not hesitate to call him a Philistine—which is, to say the least, a very cheap kind or argumentation.

It remains, therefore, that every family is obliged to report all its necessities—if we except the most common objects of daily use—to the officials at the proper bureaus. Yet this cannot be supposed to be a light burden. At present every one is at liberty to supply all his own wants at pleasure, either by his own labor or by purchase, when and where and from whomsoever he pleases, whether at home or abroad. Thus he is enabled to conceal the secrets of his household from the public gaze. Even business people, laborers, physicians, druggists, etc., are bound to secrecy, at least by their own interest. In the socialist state, however, every one could, by examining the public registers, pry into the deepest secrets of every household. For in the socialist state there would be no professions bound to secrecy by their own interests as they are now, and the public registers would be open to the gaze and inspection of the sovereign people.

Besides, we cannot overlook the fact that the socialistic system would require a huge amount of clerical work to determine the demands of an extensive commonwealth. Socialists, however, point to our modern syndicates, corporations, state industries, etc., to show how easy it would be to determine the wants of a nation. But they overlook the immense difference between a single comparatively small company, established for a limited purpose, and an entire commonwealth made up of several millions of human beings. How much writing, for instance, does a single census cost? It takes years to arrange and publish its results. And yet there the conditions are comparatively simple The same schedules are to be filled out all over the country, and contain mostly simple questions which almost any member of the family can answer.

But a census is mere child’s play compared with a determination of social demand. Here there is question not only of finding out the members of the family, the area of the farm, or the yearly output of the factory, but it will be necessary to inquire into the daily needs of every man or every family in the most varied circumstances. Even the smallest details in the matter of clothing, underwear, toilet articles, travelling outfits, writing materials, amusements, and luxuries would have to be ascertained and tabulated.

Add to all this the numerous articles of food which are required even in the humblest family, the supplying of the kitchen with fuel and cooking utensils, the fitting up of the drawing-rooms and bedrooms with furniture and ornamentation, the lighting and heating, the stocking of the pantry, etc., besides the necessary repairs. There must be included the mending of clothes, furniture, etc. For in the commonwealth of the future there will be absolutely no private enterprises. Since the means of production are collective property; every branch of production is to be carried on by society at large. The authorities will have to supply needle and thread to replace the missing shirt-button. All these items must be tabulated for the determination of the demand upon which the great system of production is to be based. And all this would have to be done not for one family alone, but for the millions of families which constitute a modern state and for every one of their members.

But again, how unequal the needs of different families according to their several occupations, their abode, their varying modifications! We must always bear in mind that now there is not question of families in primitive circumstances. Present society is highly civilized, and its countless exigencies were practically unknown in former times. Even a cursory glance at the immense department stores of our large cities, with their thousands of different articles, will convince any one of the great variety of modern requirements.

Moreover, the social demand is not at all constant; it varies from month to month, from week to week, even from day to day. Many requirements cannot be foreseen in the least; suddenly and unexpectedly they make their presence felt. Monthly statistics would therefore not suffice. Weekly or even daily inquiries would become necessary, or at least there would be needed numerous offices where lists of requirements could be filed.

However, it would not suffice to provide for single families; the needs of society at large, all public requirements, would also have to be satisfied. In the first place would come the arrangements for transportation: streets and roads, bridges, railways, canals, vehicles of all kinds. The care of all this would be incumbent on the paternal state. What an amount of daily exertion to supply a large city with meat, milk, fruit, vegetables, etc.! Private hotels would also be abolished. It would become the function of public officials to provide shelter, food, and service, for every comer, unless travelling is to be forbidden in the socialist commonwealth. Then, again, the whole of the building business will be in the hands of the state. Public and private edifices, dwellings, schools, hospitals, insane asylums, storerooms, theatres, museums, public halls, post and telegraph offices, railroad stations, would have to be erected and kept in repair, or enlarged as necessity required. And these buildings could not be handed over to contractors, as is generally done nowadays; the state alone could take care of drawing up the plans and specifications, of gathering the necessary materials and workmen, of directing and supervising the erection. If the state is supposed to do all this systematically, without squandering an immense amount of labor and materials, the extent and quality of the requirements in the entire commonwealth must be ascertained long beforehand by some responsible authority.

What the different city and town administrations are doing now, and as a rule through private contractors, in the matter of streets, public health, water-supply, lighting, baths, etc., would fall to the care of the state. Physicians, surgeons, druggists, nurses, midwives would have to be appointed, and it would be incumbent upon the state to provide for the professional education of a sufficient number of people for all these offices. The state would have to find ways and means to take care of education, of the press, literature, arts, theatres, museums, etc. Private enterprise would be abolished also in this respect; the editing and publishing of daily papers, magazines, and periodicals would all become official business.

Thus far we have considered the business to be transacted in the several cities. To this would have to be added the management of the farms, vineyards, vegetable gardens, cattle and stock raising, the forests and fisheries, mining, smelting, and other industrial processes. In all these departments the requirements would have to be accurately ascertained before there could be any question of a systematic regulation of production.

Finally, we must not forget the official and private relations with foreign countries. No modern state is self-sufficient. With regard to numberless products it must have recourse to other countries. At the same time due care must be taken of the export trade. As things are now, imports and exports are managed by merchants all over the country. Countless commercial travellers study the condition of the market; the most advantageous chances of buying and selling are ascertained. The transportation and distribution of commodities throughout the country is taken charge of by numerous business concerns. All this work and care, which at present is divided among thousands of different firms, would fall to the share of the socialist central government. In its hands would converge the millions of intricate threads of international relations. Can any human wisdom be equal to this stupendous task? And then consider the opportunities and temptations of embezzlement. The yearly exports and imports of Germany or the United States amount to billions of dollars. All this money would pass through the hands of officials stationed in different parts of the globe, and whom it would be impossible to control.

It may be objected, of course, that the future commonwealth would dispense with money for its internal affairs, and that therefore this commodity could be safely entrusted to officials for whom it would have no value at home. But it suffices, if money has value at least in foreign countries, and if the officials have the chance of emigrating at the proper moment. And how could a state compete with other countries in foreign commerce, if the rate of exchange were fixed by those other countries, since in the socialist states only labor certificates would be of value? This difficulty would indeed be removed if socialism were introduced simultaneously among all civilized nations. But this universal and simultaneous introduction of socialism is manifestly impossible.

Finally, to answer satisfactorily all the questions confronting the socialist commonwealth before it could draw up a plan of systematic production, would it not require an overwhelming amount of statistical labor, and a huge army of bureau officials? And would not such a complicated system of bureaucracy be subject to the greatest blunders, which perhaps would prove fatal to the entire system of production and to the existence of the nation? And when we consider, moreover, that these legions of officials would be bound by no private interest to the faithful administration of their office, could we expect a statistical result which might serve as a safe basis for production?