Section IV: The Division of Produce

We now come to that point of the socialistic system of which socialists are particularly proud, and which even commends itself to the sympathies of many who are not socialists. Is it not an undeniable fact, they say, that production is continually on the increase, and yet that the greater number of men live in extreme poverty? Whence this phenomenon? They answer: from the unjust distribution of industrial produce.

We readily grant that in our present system of distribution there is much that is defective and needs improvement. There are not a few capitalists who, for sordid gain, use the laborers unjustly; not a few who by dishonest speculation bring other men’s property into their possession. What we deny is this—that socialism, in all its schemes, has devised a fairer and better method of distribution.

We shall suppose that the annual proceeds of production in the socialist state have turned out abundant—although, from our former remarks, this supposition must seem improbable; but we shall make this supposition, to put socialism in the most favorable light possible. Now the first thing will be to ascertain the total amount of the collective product. Before beginning the distribution it is necessary to know exactly how much there is to be distributed. To hand over to each one at random or at his pleasure any amount of wine or milk, poultry or venison, might exhaust the stores before long, and cause the rest to go home empty-handed. Therefore the available quantity of all products, at least of natural products which cannot be obtained at will, would have to be accurately determined. To do this even for one article only would be a difficult task, necessitating a vast amount of clerical work, and a corresponding number of officials.

The products of each kind might indeed be brought together in central warehouses, whence they would be distributed throughout the country. Thereby supervision and control would be greatly facilitated, but also an immense waste of time and labor would be the result. The grain, e.g., would first be shipped from all over to the central warehouses and then be sent back again in part to the place whence it came. To make the matter more tangible, let us suppose there is question of determining the supply of milk produced in a certain state, and how much of it can be given to each one to satisfy all reasonable demands. How can we make even an approximate estimate of the amount produced throughout the country, considering that it depends on the differences of season and fodder, and on other circumstances and contingencies varying from day to day? And yet the same trouble would arise with every one of the countless natural and artificial products of which a great commonwealth stands in need.

But, will the total product be distributed? Not at all. As Marx points out emphatically, there is to be subtracted first that part which is needed for the continuance of production, for the repair of machines and tools, for the improvement of factories and their equipment, for the transportation of raw material, etc. Besides, there is to be established a reserve fund as an insurance against accidents and the havoc wrought by natural calamities. Finally there are yet to be subtracted from the total product, “first, the general costs of administration outside of production . . .; secondly, whatever is required for the social gratification of public wants, as schools, sanitary appliances, etc. . . .; thirdly, funds for the disabled— in short, for whatever belongs at present to the official bureaus of charity.”¹ By this previous deduction socialism intends to abolish taxation altogether.

¹ Marx, Zur Kritik des sozialdemokratischen Parteiprogramms, pp. 565-566.

Only the remainder of the proceeds is to be justly divided among the individual members of the body social. Now it is evident, as we have already shown, that not all will be allowed to go to the public stores and indiscriminately, without further control, to take whatever they please. A certain clear, fixed, and practicable standard must be adopted; and the question is, what this standard shall be. Socialism has thus far devised not a single practicable standard. Socialists themselves are on this point, as on many other points of practical policy, somewhat reticent. Marx advocates a distribution of goods according to the amount of labor performed, at least in the primitive state of socialism; but in a more advanced phase of society, he adds, each one will draw “according to his reasonable wants.’ We shall now proceed to examine successively the practicability of the imaginable standards for distribution. We can imagine only five such standards that might be made the basis for the distribution of produce—the number of persons, the labor-time, the amount of labor performed, diligence, and actual wants.