Section I: Equal Rights of All Men

Equality of rights among men is another of the fundamental tenets and postulates of socialism. The socialist demand for equality assumes a twofold aspect, one moderate and the other extreme.

I. The moderate view is that of Marx and Engels. These two luminaries of “scientific” socialism describe the equality aimed at by socialists for the present as the abolition of all class distinctions: every one is to be a laborer like all the rest and to get his share of the social product according to the measure of his labor.

During the first stage of socialist co-operation Marx supposes “the right of the producers [to be] proportional to their output. Equality,” he says, “consists in the fact that the same standard of measurement, labor, is applied to all. But one man may be physically or intellectually superior to another, he may furnish more work during the same time, or may be able to work longer; and if labor is to be used as a standard, it must be determined as to its duration and intensity, else it ceases to be a standard. Equal rights are thus unequal rights on account of unequal amounts of work. No class distinctions will be acknowledged, because each one is but a laborer like all the rest; but unequal individual talents and capacities are tacitly acknowledged as privileges of nature. There are therefore unequal rights both as to their substance and to their nature.”¹

¹ Zur Kritik des sozialdemokratischen Parteiprogramms. (Neue Zeit, 1890–1891, n. 2, p. 567.)

Similarly Fr. Engels maintains: ‘The real substance of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the abolition of class distinctions. The demand for any further equality inevitably leads to absurdities.”²

² Engels, H. Dührings Umwälzung der Wissenschaft, p. 96.

On what grounds are we to acknowledge this moderate demand for equality as justifiable? Marx as well as Engels derives this demand from the theory of surplus-value. This, again, is but a deduction from the theory of value originated by Ricardo and more fully developed by Marx, according to which labor is the only “value-producing substance,” and no commodity can have any exchange-value beyond the socially necessary labor-time contained in it.

From this theory, however, which, by the way, has already been shown to be untenable, it is impossible to infer the demand for equality even in the above restricted sense. At the utmost we may conclude from it that each one’s share of the collective product will be equal to the work furnished by him, or as Marx has it: “The amount of work given to society in one shape is received again in another.”

Let us assume that a workingman of great skill and assiduity in a short time earns enough not only to indulge personally in a dolce far niente, but even to hire one or more servants—who shall prevent him from doing so? And if, to boot, he were to receive some donations, or by inheritance, gambling, or otherwise obtain a share of other workingmen’s product and live high in consequence, who shall prevent him? In this manner there would soon again be masters and scrvants, rich and poor, laborers and idle drones, in brief, there would be class distinctions. Some men, preferring to keep bachelor’s hall, could live in plenty and comfort, whilst others of less strength and fewer talents, but encumbered by a wife and children, would continually find the wolf at the door.

Moreover, what is to become of “organized social production,” if each one is at liberty to stop or to take up work whenever he pleases, or whenever he thinks that he is no longer in need of work? Perhaps you answer that each one will be forced to work as long as the community or its representatives demand it. But this demand can surely not be inferred from the theory of value. Other more fundamental doctrines would have to be applied. Finally, if the amount of labor performed is to be the only standard of distribution, what is to become of those unable to work—the sick, insane, decrepit, orphans, etc. ?

Besides we shall show further on that it is quite impossible to apply labor as a standard of distribution. For, who can pronounce a fair and satisfactory judgment on the skill of each laborer and on the intensity of his application, and thus determine quite exactly how much of the total product will constitute his share?

Marx seems to have been well aware of the undesirability of applying labor as an exclusive standard of distribution. He grants that there will be certain inequalities which are “inconveniences unavoidable during the first period of communist society, which, after long travail, is just then issuing forth from the womb of capitalist society. Rights can never be superior to economic conditions and to the development of civilization determined by them.”

“In a higher phase of communist society, after the slavish subordination of the individual under the divisions of labor and consequently the opposition between mental and bodily work has disappeared, .. . after the individual has become more perfect in every respect, increasing thereby also the productive forces, .. . then only . . . society may inscribe upon its banner: Each one according to his faculties, to each one according to his needs.”

In connection with what Marx has said concerning the first period of communist society his last remarks cannot be construed otherwise than to mean that only in the second stage perfect equality will reign. Therefore also he is constrained to hold up before workingmen the picture of perfect equality as the ultimate goal of social evolution; yet, wary man that he is, he shrouds his goal in nebulous obscurity in the distance.

“Distance lends enchantment to the view.”

In the above extract Marx barely hints at the reasons supporting his hope for “a higher phase of communist society.” Economic evolution is expected to plane down individual differences more and more. This assumption, however, is contradicted by the testimony of past historical development. It may even be put down as a general experience that the specific variety of social organisms and personal characteristics keeps pace with the progress of civilization. Among savage tribes we find the nearest approach to uniformity and general equality of rights. The greater the advance in social evolution, the greater also the distance from uniformity and equality. This was the case in the past and will be such in the future. Not even the transfer of private property in the means of production to collective ownership would make the least difference in this respect, provided that civilization is retained at its present height and no recourse is had to brute force.

II. The demand for equality in its extreme form is the demand for perfect or absolute equality of rights. It acknowledges no diversity of rights and duties. It is in this sense that the demand for equality is taken by the great majority of socialists.

1. The Gotha platform calls for the “removal of all social and political inequality.” The drafts for an “amended” platform proposed at the Erfurt convention all contained the same demand, and in its final wording we read that the social democratic party contends for “the abolition of the rule of classes and of the classes themselves, and for the equal rights and equal duties of all without distinction of sex or pedigree. Bebel,¹ Stern,² Kautsky,³ and others demand equality for all in the conditions of existence. According to Liebknecht⁴ there shall exist in the state of the future absolute equality of rights, and this equality is to be the only limit to freedom.

¹ Bebel, Die Frau, p. 265; we quote from the 18th edition.

² Thesen über den Sozialismus, p. 19.

³ Das Erfurter Programm in seinem grundsätzlichen Teile erläutert, 1892, p. 160.

⁴ Berliner Volksblatt, 1890, n. 253. In his speech anent the Erfurt platform Liebknecht pathetically exclaims: “Exploitation in every form shall cease, men shall be free and equal, not masters and servants, but comrades, brothers and sisters.” Again, in a meeting Jan. 12, 1892, he maintained: “We shall abolish supremacy in its every form and establish equality in every direction.”

By such absolute equality of rights we cannot understand merely equality before the law; for such equality already exists in certain countries, as in the United States. The socialist demand is rather for actual and universal equality of rights in actual social life. And to leave no doubt as to the extent of this demand the disregard of sex or pedigree finds special mention in the Erfurt platform.¹

¹ Kautsky (Das Erfurter Programm, etc., p. 16) seems to hold that the principle of equality amounts only to equality of income, and he does not hesitate to remark that if the principle of equality really brought about any of the consequences pointed out by adversaries of socialism, it would be simply “cast overboard.” This is the much-vaunted socialist science. For all it cares, the principles now serving as bait for the proletariat may in future be cast overboard!

It has been asserted by some people that by rights socialism must assume the character “not of the party of equality but of the party of justice; not of the party of false democracy,’ but of the party of moral and intellectual—that is natural—aristocracy.”² However, this seems to be an entire misconception of the very essence of socialism as a labor party, as the party of the fourth estate, of the proletariat. True, socialists pose as the party of justice. But whence have they the right to set themselves up as the vindicators of justice by claiming perfect equality of rights for all, and to brand modern society wholesale as unjust? If they wish to answer this question they can only point to the equality of all men, from which equality equal rights would follow. By substituting for the existing aristocracy a nondescript natural aristocracy, the laboring classes would profit nothing at all. Besides socialist leaders will not easily relinquish a catchword as efficacious as that of “perfect equality” with its magic influence in stirring up the downtrodden classes.

² Paulsen, System der Ethik, II. p. 424.

Finally, the demand for equality of rights is necessarily connected with the fundamental tendencies of socialism. The means of production are to become the collective property of the whole community. But every one is equally a member of the community, therefore every one must have the same rights to the common property. To introduce collective ownership and then to debar certain classes from disposing freely of the common goods would be self-contradictory. It would renew slavery and class supremacy in its most odious form. Let us, therefore, examine this assumption of equality itself.

2. True it is that all men have a like nature—that all men are perfectly equal, if considered in the abstract, according to their nature, apart from all concrete circumstances which must necessarily accompany actual existence. All have the same Creator, the same aim and end, the same natural moral law; all are members of one great family. Hence follows also that there are essential rights and duties which are, so to speak, necessarily engrafted on human nature and are the same with all men. Every individual human being has, therefore, at all times and in all places, the right to be treated as a man. Every individual has also the right to the strictly necessary conditions of existence. But that all men must enjoy the same conditions of existence cannot be proved from the equality of men in the abstract.

3. As soon as we consider men as they really are we are confronted with the greatest possible variety from which necessarily arises a diversity of rights and duties. Some are in helpless infancy or tender youth; others are in the strength of manhood; others again are declining to their graves in decrepit old age. From this variety necessarily follows a diversity of rights and duties. Or should helpless children and decrepit old men and women possess the same rights and duties as men in the prime of life? Should the infirm have the same rights and duties as the healthy, women the same rights as men? We are aware that many socialists advocate such equality, particularly the absolute equality between man and woman. The marriage-union, according to them, is “a private contract without the intervention of a public functionary.” Woman may, according to their tenets, love whom she pleases and as long as she pleases. If she is not satisfied with one alliance, she may loose the knot and bless some one else with her love. Married or unmarried, she is to enjoy perfect equality with the sterner sex.¹

¹ Bebel, Die Frau, p. 192.

Bebel, however, may permit us to ask him: Must, then, men in turn with their wives rock the cradle, cook, knit, and darn, and attend to all womanly household duties? And, again, must women as well as men descend into the mines, perform the duties of coachmen, draymen, sailors, etc.? Must they gird on the sword, take up the knapsack and rifle, and march to the field of battle? In order to effect such equality we would have to go back to the most barbarous times, and even then this equality would be frustrated by the weakness of the female sex. For why did nature bestow on woman so totally different an organization—talents, inclinations, and characteristics so different from those of man? Is not this intellectual, moral, and physical diversity an evident indication that the Creator of both natures has set for them a totally different task in society ?

Bebel, it is true, thinks that the difference of endowments and inclinations in the two sexes is only the result of education—or rather of that “slavery” to which woman has been thus far subjected, and that with the change of education and social standing this difference would altogether disappear. This assertion is untrue. It is sufficiently refuted by the fact that this difference between man and woman confronts us everywhere, among all nations, even of the most diverse customs. It follows also of necessity from the physical organization of woman and from the duties and cares which are inseparably connected with motherhood.

Apart from the diversity of age and sex, even though we could picture to ourselves men and women in equal circumstances, such equality in the conditions of existence of all is unnatural. We have only to recall to mind how different men are in regard to inclinations, talents, characters, health, physical strength, natural wants—to say nothing of the moral differences in regard to prudence, temperance, industry, economy—to see the utter impossibility of this supposed equality. From this variety follows also diversity in regard to honors, influence, property, social standing, which could be prevented only by continued violence.

To bring home to ourselves with evidence the utter impossibility of such absolute equality, let us suppose, for instance, four brothers who bear the greatest resemblance to one another. Three of them get married; the fourth prefers to remain unmarried. His rights and duties are quite different from those of the other three. Of these we shall suppose that one remains childless, the second has three children, and the third has eight. Their duties and rights have varied still more. Though we have admitted that all four brothers were, in the beginning, equally situated in regard to home, property, and business relations, yet, after some ten years have passed, the conditions of their existence have become very different. The first has to provide for himself only. The second has to provide for himself and his wife; the third has to provide for five persons, and the fourth for ten. If now we take into account the difference in regard to talent, industry, etc., it becomes manifest that in less than half a generation the circumstances of the four brothers have changed in many regards. And if, moreover, sickness, misfortune, persecutions have exercised a disturbing influence upon the relations, may it not easily happen that within one generation the equality has altogether disappeared? And what differences will set in during the following generation which has already begun under such unequal conditions?

Socialists may object that in the preceding example we suppose the now existing conditions of society, but in the socialistic state of society such a development would be altogether impossible, as the care of children, of the sick, etc., would be in the hands of the community, woman would take the same part in labor as man; and each one would live upon the produce of his own labor. Very true; but we maintain only that inequality is the necessary outcome of the natural development of man, and that socialism could not without external violence prevent such inequality. A gardener may effect that all the trees of a park are equally high, or rather equally low; but only by continued and violent pruning. Such an unnatural condition, however, cannot be lasting.

4. So far we have taken only the family into consideration. But beyond the boundaries of the family, owing to the countless shades of inclinations and wants, various social gradations are formed. It is only by an extensive division of labor that men can satisfy their wants and propensities and arrive at a higher degree of culture. But the division of labor again produces as a necessary result the division of society into various ranks and professions, which have for their basis the different inclinations and talents of men, and afford to each individual the opportunity of choosing a suitable vocation.

However we may conceive of an advanced state of society, there will always be ignorant people, and, consequently, always teachers. Have the pupil and the teacher the same rights and duties? There will always be apprentices and masters. Can the master and the apprentice have the same rights and duties? There will always be sick persons and persons decrepit with old age; and, consequently, there will be physicians and surgeons and nurses. Can these have exactly the same rights and duties as those intrusted to their charge? There will always be agriculture, commerce, industry, science, and art. Shall those who devote themselves to these various pursuits have exactly the same conditions of life? Shall all men and women, in the same way, be trained to the profession and practice of all these various avocations?

The more moderate class of socialists, it is true, are inclined to admit different vocations with different emoluments in “the state of the future.” On the other hand, the extremists—to whom Bebel belongs —would do away with all inequality in the different vocations. By education and culture, according to Bebel, it is possible to make all men fit for all professions, so that each one “in his turn” is fit to discharge all the various functions of social life. Also Marx speaks of a general adaptability of workingmen in a higher stage of development. This assumption, however, is absurd, and is based on an incredible exaggeration of human abilities, as we shall have occasion to show hereafter; but it is quite logical, for it follows with rigid necessity from the principles of socialism. He who has once undertaken, on the ground of the equality of all men, to upset the existing order of society, and to create equal conditions of life for all, cannot permit that society freely adopts professions or callings which, in regard to emolument, labor, and dangers, are so widely different from one another—as are, for instance, the professions of an author or an artist, and the employment of a miner, a fireman, a stableboy, a hod-carrier, a laborer in a chemical factory or spinning-mill.

We conclude with the beautiful words of Aristotle: “The lawgiver must be more intent on equalizing the desires of men than their property.”¹

¹ Aristotle, Polit. II. c. 7.