§ V. Liberty of the Press in Socialism

The freedom of the press in socialism deserves special consideration. True, we consider as objectionable that unlimited freedom of the press which allows all manner of outrage upon good morals, religion, lawful authority, marriage, property, etc., to go unpunished. But no less objectionable in our time, when different religious denominations are actually tolerated and live peaceably together, would be a censorship permitting that only to be published which would have the approval of state officials. But such a censorship would be necessary in the socialist state.

All labor materials are the exclusive property of the community; consequently, also the printing-presses would be public institutions. The community must supply the materials and the labor-hands; it is also the task of the community to decide on what is to be printed and what to be put in the waste-basket. It would therefore depend entirely upon the majority of the respective committee, or of the entire people, whether a literary work, be its merit great or small, should ever see the light or not. Socialists pride themselves on this feature of their system. Bebel particularly boasts that in the state of the future much of the “rubbish” which in our time floods the book-market would never be published. But manifestly such a policy would destroy the good seed together with the cockle. True, many books, and among them much “rubbish,” would remain unpublished; but very probably many works also of real literary merit would be suppressed, while much would doubtless also see the light which would fully deserve the name of “rubbish.” For the question is, what is to be regarded as rubbish? One party considers a work as worthless, while another considers it valuable, and a third even admires it, and vice versa. Very often, we fear, the most learned and scientific works would be branded as rubbish, while frivolous and superficial productions would find their way through the press. Let us suppose the case that a citizen of the “state of the future” has gained the conviction that the collectivist order of society is highly unjust and absurd, and that he embodies and substantiates his opinion in a scientific work, or in a series of popular essays. What will the socialist censors judge of his lucubrations? What we say of scientific subjects would be still more true of religious questions. In the collectivist state a party would have it in its power to exclude from the press every religious opinion which it would find inconvenient. Or could authors appeal to the liberality and tolerance of the popular majority? The masses are generally more intolerant than individuals: the latter must regard public opinion, the former need not.

Like the printing-press so also the foundation and support of all kinds of scientific and artistic institutions—elementary, middle, and high schools, industrial schools, clinics, libraries, museums, etc.—would be placed under public direction; so that new establishments could not be set up except by vote of the majority. In the erection of such institutions the first question which would present itself to the consideration of the community would be the increase of the national labor, which would never, or at least’ not for many years, produce any industrial fruit.

In socialism slavery would go even to greater extremes. All buildings, particularly the great public edifices, would be the property of the entire state, which would dispose of them by means of its officials. No public building could, therefore, be erected for large assemblies, for divine worship, for public lectures, etc., except with the permission of the majority or of the state’s representatives. But let this suffice: so much is certain from what we have said, that in the socialist state the majority would have full power to oppress and to enslave the minority at pleasure. The latter would have no guarantee for their freedom except the good-will of the majority, or at the worst revolution, to which it might claim the same right as the socialists of to-day.