§ II. Modern Industrial Organizations

Of greater force seems to be at first sight the objection taken by socialists from modern industrial organizations. In the present social order it is no rare phenomenon that eight or ten or even more thousand laborers are employed in one great industrial department; and yet the industry proceeds in the very best order. Nor do the labor materials and the machinery belong to the laborers themselves, nay, not even to the directors of such industrial establishments. Why should not such a system be extended to an entire state?

This objection unfortunately overlooks one feature, and that is the chief distinction between private industry and the socialistic organization. This modern industrial order in great manufactories and other industries is based upon the strongest moral coercion. ‘The owner of the factory or industry, either in person or by means of his representative, confronts the laborers as proprietor and can rule them with almost absolute power. The laborer, it is true, is not forced to offer his service to such establishments, but if he wishes to obtain from them labor and support he must submit unconditionally to their ruling. The least insubordination will be the cause of his dismissal. Therefore force controls the modern system of production, but only moral force, to which each one submits for his own interest. In the socialist state, on the other hand, the directors of the various industries would confront the laborers not as proprietors, but as equals, possessing the same rights. Each one has the same right as his neighbor to consider himself a proprietor; nor can any one be dismissed; but every one must obtain work, for the simple reason that all private production is interdicted.

The world-famed Krupp iron and steel works have been adduced in favor of collective organization; therefore they will form a most appropriate illustration to show the radical differences between the existing order of things and the socialist system. In the Krupp works the division of labor, the system of production, the shop regulations, the remuneration of the workingmen, are all managed with the greatest accuracy and to the relative satisfaction of everybody. This is due to the complete subordination and respect paid to the orders of the directors, who represent the owners, and who exercise quasi-monarchical powers throughout the different departments.

But what would take place if the works were to be reorganized on a socialist basis? First of all they would no longer be owned by the Krupp family, but would become the common property of the 40,000 workingmen employed in them, all of whom would have equal rights of ownership. The supreme management would be taken from the hands of the permanent directors, who thus far regulated everything uniformly and systematically, and would be entrusted to the “Comrades” at large, who would either have to decide matters themselves, or to depute a managing committee elected for one or two years. Now, the first difficulty will be the division of labor. All know that they have equal rights, that class distinctions are abolished. Who is to be appointed to the coarser and who to the finer work? Even within the relatively limited extent of the Krupp works there is an immense difference between various functions. Some are as agreeable as others are irksome, some require more skill than others, some are honorable, others less so. Why should one workingman undertake disagreeable jobs rather than another, since all have equal rights in the factory? There will be an accumulation of all the difficulties we have enumerated above when speaking of the organization of labor and of vocations. To them will be added the dilemma arising from the division of the products. What shall serve as a standard of division? The number of laborers, the time of work, or the needs of the individual? We have seen that a division which will satisfy everybody is practically impossible. Again, what is to be done if some of the men play truant or go on a spree? Or if one is reported on the sick-list? Is he to be thrown on the street and abandoned? In the present circumstances he who is not satisfied in the Krupp works may go elsewhere to look for a job. If he wishes to stay, he must conform to the regulations. If he is incorrigibly lazy, if his conduct is open to serious complaints, he will be discharged and allowed to shift for himself. These works are ruled therefore by stringent coercion, by strict subordination. Of all this there can be no question in the socialist system. The “Comrades” are equal and free. How long would it last until order and harmony would be disturbed by fights, party quarrels, intrigues of all kinds? And what would there be to induce the workingman to labor diligently and to be saving in the use of his tools and materials?

Moreover, all food and other supplies would have to be taken from the common store rooms and eating-houses; education, care of the sick, funerals even would be regulated according to the decision of the majority. The same would be the case in the administration of justice and in legislation; there would be no appeal to any higher power. Books and newspapers would be published or not, just as it would suit the majority or its representatives.

Thereby, however, we have not yet completed the chapter of difficulties. In the Krupp works, with their 40,000 workingmen, affairs are not excessively complicated, and may be easily controlled by a skilful and experienced manager, especially if he has been in the business for a number of years. Besides, the operations carried on are pretty much of one kind and confined to one establishment. Socialism, however, in order to abolish anarchy of production—and that is its boasted aim—must needs be realized at least in the whole of a modern industrial state. Socialist leaders even dream of an international organization, and for good reasons, as we have seen above. Therefore there would be required an appropriate division of labor forces for the different parts of the country. It would be impossible to permit every one to change about at will, or to choose the most agreeable place of residence. Also uninhabitable, rough, or swampy districts would need a laboring population.

We need but follow up carefully those consequences, which naturally flow from the socialization of the means of production and from the systematic regulation of production and division of products, and we shall arrive at the undoubted conclusion that this system cannot be realized without entailing veritable and universal slavery, a slavery unbearable for any length of time and altogether impossible on a really democratic basis. The practicability of large private industrial institutions, therefore, does not prove the possibility of extending the same system to entire states. The arguments taken from the state industries which have been attempted by some governments, such as railroads, mail service, telegraphs, state mines, etc., prove as little in favor of socialism. For in these public industries also the state or its representatives in their relation to the laborers are considered as proprietors. Besides, the directors are personally interested in such establishments, and are themselves also under the influence of the same moral coercion as the laborers. Every official as well as every laborer must be satisfied with his position. There is no alternative left him, if he wishes to gain his livelihood. Besides, he may be dismissed at pleasure or his salary may be curtailed, if he gives any occasion of complaint to his superiors. Even a slight murmur or repugnance on his part may suffice to deprive him of his position. Hence it is that in our modern state industries, wherever they have obtained, main force is the ruling power, and all is directed by absolute control. But in the socialist state of the future, in which every man is to be a sovereign and to receive his position and his support from the community, in which, moreover, the final decision regarding the control of labor, the division of produce, the appointment of officers, should be the business of the people, the case would be quite different.