§ IV. Arts and Sciences in Socialism

If bold statements were sufficient to produce desired effects, socialism would not be opposed, but highly beneficial, to arts and sciences. But if progress on the field of industry would be, as we have seen, greatly retarded in the socialistic organization, it is natural to expect that progress in the arts and sciences would be still more restricted. According to Bebel’s programme in the socialistic organization, all, without exception, shall take a direct and “ physical” part in production; consequently, there shall be no professional artists and scholars. This conclusion is strictly logical, but at the same time it shows the absurdity of the socialistic system. For it is manifest that under such conditions there would be no possibility of real progress, for he who is to produce anything of considerable value in the field of art or science cannot cultivate these as a secondary object in leisure hours merely as an amateur, but must devote himself wholly to them from his very youth. But it must be borne in mind that socialism will introduce all, without exception, at an early stage of youth, into all branches of production, since production is the proper end, the only acknowledged purpose of the socialist state. Moreover, those disagreeable employments for which no laborers will volunteer, must be performed by all in their turn; and all without exception are bound for their whole life to take an active part in production. Can there be, under such circumstances, any higher, scientific, and artistic aspirations and activity? Will there be any taste and enthusiasm left for any branch of knowledge beyond physical labor? In our present state of society it is self-interest and necessity that urge on the youthful student to earnest labor. Upon his labor depends his future existence, his advancement, and his final position in society; whereas in the socialistic order scientific and artistic abilities can have no influence upon a man’s social standing. Remuneration will be gauged solely by the amount of production of one’s labor, and not by those occupations to which one may devote himself for his amusement in leisure hours.

True, it sometimes happens in our day that men, without any regard to external advantages, from sheer love of science or art, undertake profound studies. But this is the exception, not the rule; and even these few have generally received the first impulse to study from bitter necessity or from self-interest; and they continue for their own pleasure the studies or researches which in the course of time have become for them a source of delight. But in a collectivist state there would be no such incentives for youth, since all, no matter what vocation they may choose, shall have exactly the same conditions of life.

But let us suppose that Bebel’s demand—that all should in the same manner “physically” take part in the work of production—should be dropped as impracticable by socialists; that professional scholars, artists, and scientists should be tolerated. By avoiding Charybdis they strike upon Scylla. Thus they would be forced to abandon the socialist theory of value, according to which all objects of use are to be estimated by the amount of labor consumed in their production; and by labor is here understood only such work as is either directly or indirectly productive. But there are many arts and sciences which have no value, or at least very small value, for production. What does poetry or music, for instance, contribute toward the national production? What astronomy, philosophy, comparative philology, history, etc.? And if such labors should nevertheless be remunerated by the community, what must be the standard by which they are to be estimated? But we must return to this point when we speak of the division of produce. Moreover, would not the unequal treatment of employing one as a scholar, artist, scientist, or professor, while another is forced to undergo the disagreeable labors of the mine or the factory, do away with the equal conditions of life, and give occasion to jealousy and complaints? If socialists nowadays declaim against “unproductive entities” and “drones,” how much more would they do so in the commonwealth of the future, when all would be conscious of their equal rights, and have the decision of all things in their own hands? We have already drawn attention to the fact that socialism would do away with freedom in the choice of a state or profession in life. If the state would appoint philosophers and scientists and artists, the lack of this freedom of choice would be still more keenly felt, for either it must be supposed that artists and scholars would be so placed as to enjoy respect, honor, and temporal emolument, and then all would rush to these professions, or we must suppose that they would have no distinction among their fellows, that they would have no more prestige than an ordinary shoemaker or tailor; and in this case there would be few candidates for the learned professions. In any case, the authorities would have to determine who should embrace the scientific and artistic professions.