§ III. Progress in the Socialistic State

If the necessary production would be impossible in the state of socialism, progress would be much more impossible. That private industry based on private property is conducive to progress is a fact which in our days is palpable. What wondrous progress has been made within the last century! We need only recall the invention of steamboats, railroads, telegraphs, telephones, phonographs, and all the recent results achieved in the field of electro-dynamics. Almost every day brings unexpected improvements; for every one is bound by his own interest to make himself useful to his neighbor and, if possible, to outdo his competitors. Therefore every one is bent on inventing more comfortable, useful, cheaper appliances. He who offers the best and most useful commodities at the lowest price finally takes the lead in the race of competition. 3 What will become of this progress in socialism? Bebel, with his usual boldness, announces that in the socialist commonwealth all will “turn their attention to improvement, simplification, and acceleration of the process of labor. Ambition to invent and discover will be aroused to the highest degree; one will try to outstrip the other in ideas and devices.”¹ Such phrases only bespeak the popular agitator. All shall be intent upon inventions and discoveries? But suppose that the socialistic grade of education would enable all laborers to make inventions and discoveries—which is very doubtful—where is the interest that could incite them to new discoveries and inventions? And even though there were such an interest, where would the laborer find means to make discoveries in the production of commodities? Discoveries and inventions, at least in the field of industry, suppose the possession of productive goods wherewith one may experiment at pleasure. They suppose, moreover, that one is thoroughly trained in that one department, which he makes the special study of a lifetime; consequently, that he is not directed at pleasure by a superintendent or council of production, or by the vote of the people, or by changes from one branch of industry to another, and thus made a bungler in every branch or trade. Schäffle¹ speaks of schools or guilds of “investigators, artists, scholars,” which could be appointed by the socialist commonwealth. But Bebel, who formerly made the same statement himself,² denies the possibility of such classes. All have to take an active part in production; but the remaining free time may be employed by each individual in his favorite study.³ We have great reason to doubt that, after the social productive labor, leisure would still remain for scientific and artistic pursuits; and we have still more reason to doubt whether the “Comrades” would employ this time in earnest and solid study. We are inclined rather to think that they would devote their leisure to idleness and enjoyment.

¹ Die Frau, pp. 271, 272.

¹ Quintessence, p. 8.

² Unsere Ziele, p. 32.

³ Die Frau, p. 284.

But let that pass. We shall suppose that a socialist has made an important discovery. Now it remains to utilize it practically. In the supposition of private property this matter is comparatively easy. If the inventor has capital, or if he succeeds to enlist interested capitalists, his discovery will soon make its way into the public, if it only proves efficient. But the case is different in the socialistic order. Here every inventor must either apply to the supreme director of production, or must bring his claim directly before the people and try to interest the majority in his behalf. This, however, will present no slight difficulty. It is a difficult matter to win entire communities for any innovation, particularly if individuals have no private interest in the matter, but, on the contrary, thereby only impose new labors upon themselves. If there is question, for instance, of new machineries, heating and lighting apparatus, public buildings, highways, canals, tunnels, etc., the innovation or improvement at the outset will cost a large portion of the national labor. And if such an improvement is once decided upon, it must at the same time be introduced in the entire social body, in order that the conditions of labor and life may be equal with all. But will society in all cases tamely submit to all such innovations? We fear that in the socialist state even such improvements as would certainly promise the greatest advantages from the very outset would fail to be introduced; and how much more such inventions as require repeated and costly experiments to test their efficiency?

Kleinwächter¹ makes the following just remark on the point in question: ‘In the socialist state, in which the entire production would be in common and systematically organized, the annual labor task of the entire population would have to be fixed and distributed among the laborers by the government. If, therefore, the government would find it desirable for the national production to introduce some innovation, and thus to increase the annual task of labor; and if the people, not being able at once to realize the advantages of such improvements, would consider the introduction of such appliances as superfluous, and would refuse to undertake the additional work—the government would in that case have no means to enforce its wishes against the majority of the population; and thus progress would be necessarily retarded. In short, in a socialist state industrial progress would be possible then only when the majority of the people would favor it; and that, as all men know, is a tedious process.”

¹ Schönberg’s Handbuch, vol. I. p. 260.

Besides, it is a circumstance not to be overlooked that in our present state of society inventions and improvements of the same kind can be simultaneously introduced and tested, so that a thorough trial of each innovation is possible; and, finally, that improvement or invention which commends itself not only to the judgment of a few theorists, but has stood a practical test, will survive as the fittest. Thus we have a guarantee that the best and most useful appliances will finally gain the upper hand. Such a thorough testing would be impossible in the state of the future, as it would entail a considerable increase of labor, which would hardly meet with a sufficient remuneration, and of the utility of which the people at large could with difficulty be convinced.