§ IV. Distribution of Labor. Vocations

Engels, one of the beacon-lights of modern socialism, speaks of the transition from the anarchy of capitalistic production to the “systematic, conscious organization” of collectivist production as of the “leap of humanity from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom.”¹ Let us examine more closely the nature of this leap into the realm of freedom.

¹ Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus, etc., p. 76.

The community, or rather its representatives elected by the people, has the duty to distribute to the different workmen and workwomen, the quantum of labor determined by the central bureau. The community has to determine who is to be employed in agriculture, industry, mining; who in the distribution of produce; who is to be entrusted with its transportation, etc. It is a matter of indifference whether the communal committee determines the position which each one should occupy in the mechanism of production, or whether the position of each is to be assigned him by the authorities of the special departments of industry. In any case, the central committee must determine to which department of industry each one is to be ascribed.¹ Here again it must evidently be supposed that the heads of the departments of production have at their disposal a permanent population.

¹ What may be expected in this line from the representatives of the socialist “people” is well exemplified by the resolution introduced at the Breslau convention (Transactions, p. 17) that wet-nurses should be forbidden by the state, because sterilized cow's milk is a perfect substitute for the milk of nurses.

Can the distribution of the various works be brought about on any other plan? True, some socialistic enthusiasts would leave the choice of an occupation to the taste of each individual: thus at the beginning of the movement Charles Fourier, and recently Bebel,² Stern,³ Köhler,⁴ and Kautsky.⁵ ‘Each one,” says Bebel, ‘determines for himself in what occupation he wishes to be employed; the great variety of the various branches of labor will satisfy the most various tastes. ... The different branches and groups of laborers will choose their own superintendents to direct their various departments. These will not be taskmasters like most of our present labor inspectors and foremen: they will be comrades, with this difference only, that they exercise an administrative instead of a productive function.” The socialistic body can at pleasure devote itself “at one season of the year to agricultural, at another to industrial production.”⁶ Not only in regard to industrial, but also in regard to scientific and artistic studies every one will have occasion for suitable variety.⁷

² Die Frau, pp. 271 and 281.

³ Thesen, p. 37 sqq.

⁴ Der sozialdemokratische Staat, p. 61.

⁵ The Social Revolution.

⁶ Die Frau, p. 335.

⁷ Ibid., p. 282.

We may perhaps be allowed to raise an objection. If each one is permitted to choose his work, how can there still be question of a uniform, systematic organization of labor? It is a standing complaint with socialists that at present anarchy prevails in production, and yet, after all is said and done, they themselves make anarchy their ruling principle.

Or are they perhaps seriously convinced that it would suffice to draw up and publish a plan of production, and that then without further ado millions of comrades would spontaneously fall into line to take up that branch of production, in that place and at that time which is specified by the preconcerted plan? “What fools these mortals be!” If the quality of occupation is left to the choice of each, all will flock to the easiest, pleasantest, and most honorable employments. Industrial occupations are naturally very unequal, and even socialism cannot remove this inequality. To be a director or a member of the supreme council of production is easier than to be a fireman, or a collier, or a laborer in a chemical factory, who has to pass his hours in broiling heat and fetid air; the office of a committeeman would be more pleasant than that of the individual who would be deputed to clean the streets and sewers of the cities. Socialists will use much printer’s ink before they can print out of the world the fact that many occupations in the socialist state would be irksome, laborious, dangerous, and repulsive. If the choice were left to individuals, certainly sufficient forces would not be found for the performance of such disagreeable work.¹

¹ Marx is as a rule very obscure in expressing his ideas about the future; thus he maintains that in the higher phase of communism society will inscribe upon its banner: Each one according to his faculties, to each one according to his needs. Each one according to his faculties, probably means that each one is to serve society as best he can. But who is to judge of men’s faculties? Is each one to do this for himself and to choose his occupation accordingly? This will result in anarchy. Is the decision to be in the hands of a committee or something of that kind? This would mean intolerable slavery. It will be hard for socialists to extricate themselves from this dilemma.

Bebel, however, tries to find a way out of the difficulty. He is of opinion that street-cleaning, washing, and other disagreeable kinds of work would in the socialist state be performed by mechanical means, so that these occupations would cease to be disagreeable.¹ But even though we should make the greatest allowances for modern and future inventions, yet it would be puerile to imagine that all the disagreeable features of labor could be removed by machinery. There would still remain much disagreeable work, which could be performed only by immediate personal action. Besides, such machines must be tended and directed. Does Bebel imagine that the socialists could bring machinery to such perfection that it would be necessary only to let a machine down a shaft in order to hoist it laden with coal? Experience teaches that industrial progress has rather multiplied than diminished disagreeable jobs. Though some kinds of distasteful work are nowadays performed by machinery, other still more loathsome ones have been created in their stead. We have only to recall the number of chemical factories which are a standing nuisance not only to the laboring men, but also to whole cities and countrysides for miles around. Besides, we must bear in mind that it is a point of the socialistic programme to utilize for the benefit of society all manner of garbage and refuse, which will certainly afford no very pleasant occupation for the laborer of the future.

¹ Cf. Stern, Thesen, p. 38.

Unless we admit, then, that in the state of the future unselfishness, self-devotion and thirst for selfabasement and suffering shall become general, nothing else remains for us than to conclude that,^† finally, the influence of authority, or the vote of the majority, must force the laborer to condescend to these disagreeable and humiliating avocations. But such an interposition of authority or of the popular vote would evidently take away all freedom of choice, and be a source of endless complaint and discontent. And yet, according to the socialistic programme, there should be “equality of rights” and “equality in the conditions of life.” But is it consistent with this equality, either by command of authority or by popular vote, to condemn one man rather than another to such despicable and disagreeable employments?