§ III. The Labor Performed as a Standard

The labor performed is another standard according to which, absolutely speaking, the distribution of produce might be determined. This standard is repeatedly suggested by socialist leaders. “Superior production,” says Bebel,¹ “will receive higher remuneration, but only in proportion to the labor performed.” This is indeed the standard which consistent socialists must needs adopt. Their chief grievance against existing society is the “revenue without work” which flows into the pockets of lazy capitalists, whilst the workingman is exploited and despoiled of a great part of his product. Socialism is to secure to every laborer the full product of his labor. Consequently the standard of distribution to be adopted must be the actual labor performed—the labor-product. But can a distribution of the total product be effected by this standard? As far as the labor performed is simply determined by the socially required unit of labor-time, we have shown it to be an impracticable standard. But if the labor performed is gauged not only by the labor-time, but also according to its intrinsic value, we must take into consideration, besides the time, also skill, strength, practice, and diligence. For upon all these elements depend the quantity and quality of the labor performed. But, particularly, the various kinds of employment in which one is engaged for the benefit of society must be compared with one another, and estimated according to their relative values. For all occupations have not, as socialists pretend, the same value for society; and, consequently, they do not deserve the same remuneration. No one, for instance, will consider the work of a fireman or of a stable-boy of the same value as the services of a physician or of a professor of a university. But who will pretend to have sufficient shrewdness and wisdom to determine from the consideration of the various factors the relative value of each occupation according to the demands of justice? How totally different are the opinions of men on the relative value of labor! One considers this occupation more valuable, while another attributes greater value to a different occupation. In estimating the value of labor, much depends upon subjective views. Could, therefore, a standard so complicated, so totally dependent upon subjective opinions, be employed for the distribution of produce without giving occasion to constant discontent and discord?

¹ Unsere Ziele, p. 30.

From what we have already said we may easily conclude the impracticability of the standard of distribution proposed by Rodbertus,¹ who suggests that the proceeds should be distributed according to the normal day’s work [Werkarbeitstag], as distinguished from the work-day [Zeitarbeitstag]. First, the labor-time, or the normal working-day, must be determined —that is, the time which a workman of medium strength and with average exertion can permanently work every day in a given industry. This time is different in different branches of industry. If this normal time is once found, then it remains to determine the amount of labor to be performed—that is, that amount which an average laborer, with average skill and with medium diligence, can in a given industry produce in the normal work-time. This amount of labor Rodbertus calls the day’s work, as distinguished from the work-day, or normal labor-time.

¹ Der Normalarbeitstag, 1871.

The normal day’s work in one branch of industry, according to Rodbertus, has the same value as the normal day’s work in another, or, to put it more universally, the products of the same labor-time are equal in value. If, for instance, a pair of shoes forms a day’s work in the shoe industry, and a table five days’ work in the joiner’s trade, a table is worth five times as much as a pair of shoes.

Attempts have been made to calculate the normal day’s work for different trades: even for the simplest labor such a calculation is most tedious and complicated, and at best only approximately correct. For, as Rodbertus remarks, it is not sufficient to calculate the labor directly employed by the shoemaker to make a pair of shoes, but it is necessary also to reckon the wear of the shoemaker’s tools in the operation. But to make this latter calculation it is necessary to know the value of all the shoemaker’s instruments, of the various materials that go to make a pair of shoes—leather, thread, nails, hammer, awl—and, moreover, to calculate how many days’ work might be performed by every one of these instruments.

This standard of Rodbertus rests on the assumption that the value of an object is determined solely by the labor consumed in its production. But thisassumption, as we have proved, is false. Good wine, fruit, timber, cloth, grain, or land, is sold at a higher price than the same quantity of the same object of an inferior quality, and that independently of the labor consumed upon it. Why are fresh articles of food—fruit, meat, butter, etc.—sold at a higher price than stale ones? Every child can answer this question. Should this simple question puzzle political economists like Rodbertus? It is upon the usefulness of an object that its value chiefly depends. This is also the case, as we have seen, with human labor; and therefore it is erroneous to make the day’s work in one branch of industry equivalent to the day’s work in another.

The normal day’s work, moreover, is impracticable as a standard of distribution, because there are many industries and activities to which it is impossible to apply it. Who, for instance, can determine the day’s work of a physician, a scientist, a teacher, an astronomer, an historian, a state official? The tailor or shoemaker can preserve the product of his labor and have it estimated by competent judges. But what has the physician, or the scientist, or the astronomer, or the magistrate, or the teacher to show? What can the husbandman present, if drought, or frost, or hail has destroyed his crops? Or what can the huntsman or fisherman exhibit, if he happens to be unsuccessful in his efforts? The standard of the day’s work, moreover, is not consistent with the social democratic system. For it would necessarily bring in its wake considerable social inequalities. Rodbertus himself acknowledges that the day’s work standard would introduce the piece-system into the socialist state. If, for instance, he who has performed one normal day’s work receives payment equivalent to one, he who in the same time performs two normal day’s work receives double the amount. But he who has performed only half a day’s work will receive but half the pay. Now, it is not at all impossible that a strong, healthy, skilful laborer should do twice or three times as much work as another who is weaker and less skilful. Thus considerable social inequality would soon arise, especially if the weaker laborers would, by sickness or other accidents, be for a considerable time prevented from work; for we suppose that the man who works a whole day receives better pay than he who is sick and unfit to work. Otherwise all incentives to labor would soon cease, and the rush to the public infirmaries would be universal. However feelingly the social democrats may speak of “brotherly spirit” and devotion to the common good, they cannot remove the dread of toil under which a great portion of humanity labors.

The same arguments serve also to refute the standard of division proposed by Marx. In the higher phase of communism every one is to receive according to his needs. This mode of division will be discussed later on. In a lower stage, however, in the transition of society from the capitalist to the collectivist system, each producer is to get back from society exactly as much as he has given. “His contribution is his individual share of labor. For instance, the social working-day consists of the total of the individual hours of labor; the individual labor-time of each producer is the part of the social working-day furnished by him; it constitutes his share. Society will give him a certificate that he has furnished a certain quantity of work— after deducting his work for the common fund—and by showing his certificate he will draw from society’s stores an amount of provisions equivalent in value to his work. The amount of work given to society in one shape is received again in another.”¹ Marx’s language is rather mystifying. ‘Society will give him a certificate that he has furnished a certain quantity of work.” If no more is meant by this than that the labor-time is to serve as a standard of distribution we need not prove again its injustice and impracticability. Marx himself confesses that the achievements of different workingmen vary greatly. If, however, the amount of labor expended is to be figured out, then also the assiduity, skill, intensity, and strength of each man must be taken into consideration. Yet, in numberless cases these cannot be ascertained at all. Who can calculate the amount of labor —intensity, skill, assiduity, etc.—expended by a doctor or nurse, by a scientific investigator or teacher? And even if this quantity were well known, who can say how much labor is contained in a pound of bread or a quart of milk? Finally, it has been remarked already that it is unjust to consider only the quantity and not also the quality of the work. Not every kind of work is of equal value to society.

¹ Marx in the Neue Zeit, 9th year, I. p. 566.