§ III. Division of the Labor Forces

We suppose now that the demands have been determined by the central bureau on the basis of the statistics received from the several communities or provinces. Now comes the task of organizing the national labor, as the Erfurt platform has it, of carrying on production systematically “for and through society,” or, as Marx has worded it, “of dividing the work according to a social plan.” For this purpose there is required first of all a division of the labor forces, or at least an accurate knowledge of the number, ability, and strength of the labor forces of which each community or district can dispose. For it is not possible to impose upon all provinces and districts the same amount of labor without any regard to the forces at their disposal. It may not be necessary that the central committee or “council of production” distribute the labor among the individuals of the state. That task may be left to the several communities. But it must necessarily determine what and how much each district has to produce and deliver to the community. This task, however, supposes an accurate knowledge of the working forces at the disposal of the several communities.

It must be ascertained, therefore, as accurately as possible, how much each one according to his individual talents, inclinations, and strength is able and willing to do. But in an extensive community it is impossible to obtain reliable information on these points.

We shall suppose, however, that together with the statistics of demand also an accurate estimate of the number of laborers and the efficiency of the labor forces of the different districts has been furnished. But now a new difficulty arises. In order to distribute their quantity of labor to each district or community, it is not sufficient to know the forces on hand at the time the division is made. It must also be settled that all labor hands are to remain in the same place, at least for a certain time, say a year. The question then arises whether in the socialist state the present freedom of migration should be granted or not. Bebel,¹ for his part, advocates such freedom; but how is it possible to organize labor if we suppose a constantly floating population? How can a community produce a certain amount of work if perhaps within the time specified for the performance of their task a large number of the labor hands emigrate to other communities? If, therefore, a systematic plan of production is to be put in force, the population must be constrained to remain in a certain place, at least for a time, so that during this time the migration to another community can be effected at most with the per- -mission of the authorities.

¹ Die Frau, pp. 329, 330.

But even this measure does not remove the difficulty. What would be the result, if, after some time, such a migration from one place to another would be permitted? For we shall suppose that no one is constrained by law to settle in any particular place, but that each one is left free to choose the place where he wishes to settle; this is an essential requirement of freedom.

Now, what would be the result if, in the socialist state such freedom of migration were permitted? We have reason to fear that roaming propensities, and what is vulgarly called tramping, would become an epidemic. Nowadays the greater number at least of those who are not utterly bereft of property are bound in their own interest to choose a fixed residence, either permanently or at least for some time; and even those who have no property must choose their domicile in the place where they have a prospect of earning their living. These motives, however, would not exist in the socialist state; for each member would know full well that every part of the country, whether north, south, east, or west, would be equally his home; that he would have the same rights everywhere, and the same claims to obtain work and support.

Nor can it be answered that regard for his children, for the sick and aged, would induce the socialist citizen to choose a permanent residence; for we must bear in mind that the care of children, of the aged and infirm, would be left to the state; and consequently it could not be any impediment to emigration. Or would the love of home, perhaps, attach the socialist to his native soil? We mean the love of home in the stricter sense; for in the socialist state there would be no love of country in a wider sense, as the socialist would be alike in his own country in all places. His country is not his community, or any fixed place, but at most the entire state. Every socialist would have the same right in every community of the great commonwealth; in his birthplace he would have no more rights than in any other part. Why, then, should he feel himself permanently attached to his birthplace? The foundation of the love of our birthplace is based on the right of property. Love for the place of his birth is generally not deeply rooted in the penniless beggar; his patriotism extends only to the confines of that place which affords him shelter and support. Not until a family has long lived and labored in the same place, until it has a part of its history connected with the place, until it has formed manifold ties of kindred and friendship, does it become attached to the place of its residence. But all this supposes private property, and, as a rule, property in land—at least the possession of a house or of a little homestead, and a roof which one may call his own. But all these elements are wanting in the collectivist state, in which every foot of the soil is equally the property of all its inhabitants. Therefore we are not surprised to hear socialists repeatedly characterizing patriotism as “ prejudice” or even as “folly.”¹

¹ “A curse on the so-called fatherland!” Thus we read, for instance, in a socialist manifesto. Cf. Meyer, Der Emancipationskampf, vol. II. p. 116. Already in 1848 Marx and Engels said in their “Manifesto of the Communist Party”: “Communists have been reproached with endeavoring to abolish fatherland and nationality. The workingman has no fatherland. You cannot take from him what he does not possess.”—But also in this respect a transformation seems to be going on. At the party convention of Austrian socialists in Graz, Sept. 2, 1900, von Vollmar repudiated the charge that socialists are lacking in patriotism. ‘In the love for our nationality our commonwealth, no party or class of people can surpass us.”’

It may perhaps be suggested that in the socialist commonwealth there is nevertheless a way of preserving a certain freedom of migration. Let us suppose that every one is at liberty to leave his town or district and to go whithersoever he pleases. Only, the single communes are obliged to keep an exact account of all the labor forces present during the fiscal year, and at the end of the year to furnish a proportionate amount of products.

But this is a mere dodge, which will in no way safeguard the systematic production of a great commonwealth. For the requirements in the matter of coal, wheat, rye, bread, meat, wine, beer, milk, etc., are pretty well fixed. But not every district can furnish these commodities, and those which can and must furnish them must also have at hand an adequate number of capable-laborers. It will be scant consolation for the commonwealth, if a district which was supposed to furnish, let us say, one thousand tons of coal, delivers only one hundred tons, but offers the excuse that the number of laborers at its disposal did not allow of more. The yearly output of different commodities should at least equal the demand. But if the socialist state allows perfect freedom of migration, it can never vouch for the eventual delivery of the required quantity of products.

This naturally leads up to another difficulty in the socialistic system. Will the future commonwealth allow the “comrades” to migrate at will from one country to another, from Germany to France, from England to North America, or vice versa? This question is of vital importance. Socialists will no doubt answer it in the affirmative. At least we must expect so, judging from their everlasting palaver about the liberty with which they are about to bless human kind in lieu of the existing slavery. And yet at present every one is free to try his luck in some different clime. In reality it would also be impossible to prevent emigration; at least the comrades would always have it in their power to desert. The frontiers cannot be occupied by a continuous line of soldiers, and also the soldiers may tire of their job and take French leave.

It is settled, therefore, that each one may emigrate as he pleases. What will result therefrom? Unless we suppose that socialism obtains control of affairs simultaneously in all civilized countries, there will be a torrent of emigration into those countries where socialism is not established; and the first to migrate will be just the young men and the best workers. Against this fact socialism is utterly powerless. The power of free self-determination and the prospect of advancement will have more influence on a man of energy and talent than the honor of belonging to an immense industrial organization, where superiority is excluded on principle, and where every comrade of more than average excellence must necessarily be looked upon with a jealous eye.

Now, is it at all likely that socialism will be able to realize its projects simultaneously in all civilized countries? No one entertains any serious hopes or fears on this head. Even if all the different nationalities were of one mind on every subject, socialism would have no prospects of a simultaneous victory; much less so, considering the ill-feeling and jealousy entertained by one nation against the others. Socialists boast indeed of the international character of their movement; but this internationalism does not prevent, e.g., French socialists from relentlessly expelling from France Italian and Belgian laborers; the same would be done if occasion offered in England and Germany, and it would be interesting to know how many of those who clamor against foreign labor in the United States are members of the Socialist Party.