§ V. Some Unsatisfactory Solutions

Freedom in the choice of a vocation or state of life is such an essential constituent of human liberty, that without it life is downright slavery. It is natural, therefore, that socialists and their advocates should have sought out some means of securing this freedom in the socialistic system, despite its strictly methodic arrangement. Schäffle is of opinion that by a certain regulative system, freedom in the choice of a^† state might be made compatible with the social organization of labor. He thinks that committees, appointed for this purpose, could by the reduction of pay stop the immoderate demand for certain professions, and, on the other hand, by raising the pay for other department of labor attract larger numbers of aspirants to the less desirable occupations. This proposition, however, does not seem to square with the socialistic system; for it supposes that the pay for certain kinds of labor could be raised and lowered at pleasure, so far as this would be serviceable to the labor organization. By such a measure the socialistic theory of value would be thrown overboard; for the value of produce would no longer depend on the necessary time consumed in producing it, but on external circumstances—on the greater demand, or on the greater extent of social wants. But would laborers tamely submit to the reduction of their wages because perhaps in another department of industry there is a lack of labor forces? This solution of the problem would lead to the result that the lowest and most disagreeable occupation, in which the least intellectual labor is required, would be paid best of all, and that the wages would diminish in proportion as the labor would ascend in the scale of intellectuality and appreciation; for naturally the rush to the higher and more interesting kinds of labor would continue. Such treatment of the laborer would not only be unjust, but would crush every aspiration to higher culture and higher social standing.

Edward Bellamy, in the fiction entitled “Looking Backward,”¹ gives a most glowing description of the future socialist state, and endeavors to represent it in all respects as practicable. He tries to meet our difficulty by the regulation of the labor-time. If the number of candidates for any one calling should be too great and too small for another, the labor-time would be lengthened for the one and shortened for the other. This, he thinks, would be a sufficient means of reducing, on the one side, the number of those who aspire to a higher calling, and, on the other side, of increasing the number of those who would be willing to be employed in less honorable labor or professions. But if this should prove unsuccessful, and too few laborers were found for any department of industry, it would be sufficient, he thinks, for the authorities to declare that such neglected labor would be connected with special honor, and that those who would engage in it would merit the gratitude of the entire nation. For the youth of such a socialist nation, he thinks, would be very ambitious, and would not allow such an occasion of gratifying their ambition to go unused. If, on the other hand, the rush of laborers to any department of industry were too great, those only should be chosen who would distinguish themselves in that special industry.

¹ Looking Backward, chap. vii.

This theory is characteristic of Bellamy’s treatment of the social question. He imagines humanity almost free from all those passions and shortcomings to which the children of Adam are now subject—a generation full of zeal and devotion to the common weal. But, we ask, are those human beings whom we meet in daily life really such a generation of angels? Bellamy himself shows that they are not, when he depicts in the most exaggerated colors the egotism of the present generation. We must deal with men as they are and will continue to be; and for such men Bellamy’s system has no use. Does Bellamy imagine that those who have been long employed in some work or profession will tamely submit to have the labor-time lengthened more and more, simply because there are many candidates for that kind of labor? And could a varying labor-time, suited to the different industries, be thus established by government? The demand for certain kinds of labor is not unchangeable, but may vary according to the varying inclinations of men, or according to the circumstances of time and place. It is impossible by the regulation of the labor-time to determine the number of laborers which are required to produce the necessaries of an entire nation, without committing enormous blunders, and thus creating dissatisfaction. This policy would also have the necessary result of multiplying the number of laborers employed in the lowest and most disagreeable kinds of labor.

Let us consider the matter in the concrete. Mining, for instance, is much more irksome, disagreeable, and dangerous than the occupation of a gardener, an overseer, or an artist. In order, therefore, to obtain a sufficient number of workmen it would be necessary to reduce the labor-time of miners to a minimum. What would be the result? The number of miners would have to be increased in proportion, if raw materials, coal, etc., should be forthcoming in sufficient quantities. And what we say of miners applies also to all inferior and undesirable kinds of work—for instance, street-cleaning, stable-tending, sewer-digging. The number of laborers in all those lower employments would have to be increased considerably to make up by the increase of labor-power for the shortness of the labor-time. Thus labor forces would be withdrawn from the higher and more skilled occupations, and the entire tendency of society would be backward and downward. The more degrading and disagreeable any kind of labor would be, the more laborers it would employ. Besides, according to Bellamy, all members of the social body should have a share in the national product, so that a stable-boy by fewer hours’ work could earn as much as an artist, a physician, or a lawyer, who would have to labor the livelong day.

Bebel fancies he has found another way out of the difficulty. In the first place, he has the most unlimited confidence in the self-sacrificing spirit of the laborers of the future, who at the beck of their directors will always be found ready of their own accord to fill all the breaches that may be thrown open. If this unselfish spirit, however, should not suffice, all in their turn must undertake the disagreeable jobs; for “there will be no human respect and no stupid contempt of useful labor.”¹ Nay, more: he is of opinion that the superior education of future society will effect that finally every laborer, in his turn, will be able to undertake all the functions of labor. “It is not at all improbable that as organization progresses and the thorough education of all members of the social body will advance, the different functions of labor will simply become alternate—that, at stated intervals, according to a fixed rotation, all members of a certain department, without distinction of sex, shall undertake all functions.”² Bebel maintains the possibility of such a rotation at the outset only for the various functions within the same department of production. But at a later stage of the development of his subject he gives this changing-off system a much wider application. In collectivist society the greatest regard will be had for the natural craving of man for variety; for all will have an opportunity to perfect themselves in all the branches of industry. “There will be no lack of time to acquire great facility and practice in the various branches of industry. Large, comfortable, and perfectly equipped workshops will facilitate for all, young and old, the learning of all trades, and will introduce them to their practice as it were in play. Chemical and physical laboratories, fully answering the demands of science, will be at hand, also teachers in great abundance. Then it will be manifest what a world of force and power was suppressed by the capitalistic system of production, or how these forces and powers were at least crippled in their development.”¹

¹ Die Frau, p. 291.

² Ibid., p. 271.

¹ Die Frau, p. 282.

These conclusions of Bebel are most logical, and by this very fact they strikingly illustrate the absurdity of socialism. To all disagreeable employments, therefore, for which laborers do not present themselves voluntarily, every member of society will have to submit in his turn. Every one must be street-cleaner, chimney-sweep, stable-boy, etc., in regular rotation. Let us picture to ourselves Messrs. Bebel and Singer, “without any human respect,”’ when duty calls them, submitting themselves to these disagreeable avocations, which no other member of the social body volunteers to undertake. What would the gentlemen then say of the freedom left to man in such a system? Would it not remind them of the workhouse? When Bebel assures us that in the society of the future education, and particularly technical training, would fit every member of the social body for all functions and all industries, his statement can hardly be said to deserve a refutation. Let us only imagine what such industrial and technical ability supposes. Every individual in his turn undertakes all social functions; for instance, in a factory he is director, foreman, fireman, bookkeeper, a simple laborer or hod-carrier; then he turns to some other branch of industry or social calling—becomes editor, compositor, telegrapher, painter, architect, actor, farmer, gardener, astronomer, professor, chemist, druggist. With such a programme is any thorough knowledge of anything possible?

To master a trade thoroughly, and to remain perfect in it, requires the constant application of a lifetime. This is the verdict of long experience. But now socialists are about to perfect every man in all the branches; each one is to become a first-rate engineer, architect, physician, chemist, electrician, sculptor, druggist, actor, painter, philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, teacher, agriculturist, etc. Are these braggart vaporings worthy of serious consideration?

Absurd as is the assumption that by universal development workingmen will be enabled to undertake any function of socialized production, still Marx poses as its champion. He is of opinion that “in a higher phase of communist society . . . the slavish subordination of the individual under the divisions of labor, and consequently the opposition between mental and bodily work” will disappear (cf. above p. 56). By this he cannot mean that bodily and mental occupations will become equal; this is rather too absurd. He rather wishes to assert that the communist evolution will more and more enable every worker to undertake mental as well as bodily labors and will thus remove the distinction between head-work and manual labor. Also in “Capital”¹ Marx endeavors to prove that modern evolution tends to replace the “separate individual” by the “totally developed individual,” whatever that may be, and to confer upon the workingman “absolute availability,” i.e. to make him fit for every kind of work.

¹ Capital, p. 453.

If Marx asserted no more than the possibility of training laborers to perform many different but purely mechanical functions, we should have no quarrel with him; but to maintain that also in the higher walks of knowledge and professional ability every man is to become a “totally developed individual” with “ absolute availability”’—this is a flight of imagination worthy of Munchausen himself. Of course, Marx appeals to the laws of social evolution, and very warily promises this universality of individual development as taking place only in “a higher phase of communist society.” But shooting at long range will not avail here. Even though we make the greatest possible allowance for development, man is and remains a very limited being; and the more the circle of human activity and knowledge is widening, the greater the impossibility for the individual to become proficient in every branch of science. On this fact is based the law of the increasing division of labor keeping pace with every advance of culture and civilization. There was a time once when a man could excel in nearly every known science; at present this is manifestly impossible.

Every branch of science is continually opening up new fields of knowledge, and the greater its progress the more subdivisions it necessitates. This is the case not only in the natural sciences, but also in the arts, in medicine, history, etc. In the art of healing it has long since become impossible for a physician to be equally well versed in every branch. Therefore there are eye, ear, throat, skin, nerve, etc., specialists. Also in surgery there is required the most accurate knowledge of the minutest parts of the human organism, there is needed such skill, sureness of hand, and experience, that already nowadays the most famous surgeons confine themselves to a certain class of operations. Therefore it is even now impossible for any one to attain even mediocrity in every science. This impossibility will be still more enhanced by the progress of civilization. If thus far evolution always proceeded on these lines, how can we assume that in the socialist epoch it will take a contrary direction? Therefore the assertion that in future times every individual will be an adept in every art and science is—we may be pardoned the expression—no more nor less than socialistic humbug.

Even Professor Paulsen, who is otherwise very favorable to socialism, thinks there is rather too much equalizing and levelling in the future commonwealth. He says:¹ “In the society of the future the self-same individual will be letter-carrier to-day; to-morrow he must perform the duties of a post-office clerk; on the third day he must act as postmaster-general—but why use a title?—in short, he must undertake all that business which at present the director of the national post-office has in hand—he must prepare programmes for international post-office congresses, etc.; and on the fourth day he must again return to the counter; on the fifth he condescends to be letter-carrier once more, but this time not in the metropolis, but in some out-of-the-way place; for it is but meet that the sweets of city life should fall to the lot of all in their turn. Thus it would be also in the railroad department, in the mining and in the military department, and in every common factory. To-day the member of the socialistic state descends into the bowels of the earth as a collier, or hammers at the anvil, or punches tickets; to-morrow he wields the quill, balances accounts, makes chemical experiments, draughts designs for machines, or issues general edicts on the quantity and quality of the social production, etc. In the naval department there would be a similar variety: the office of captain would fall to the lot of all in turn, as also that of steersman, of machinist, of cook, etc. And thus also in the department of state; the various officials would exchange functions: each one would in his turn be legislator, judge, commander-in-chief of the army, and chief of police.^† But I have forgotten where I am: in the state of the future there will be no more wars, and no more thieves, and counterfeiters and idlers and tramps; consequently there will be no more judges and soldiers necessary. Nor will there be any need of laws, or of a state at all, in the land of Utopia, in which the wolves will play with the lambs on the pasture and eat grass; when the ocean will be filled with lemonade and ships will be drawn by trusty whales; where envy, hatred, tyranny, ambition, indolence, folly, and vanity will no longer exist; where there will be only wise and good men—in the millennium, for which it will not be necessary to devise laws and ordinances. In this ideal state benevolence alone shall reign supreme.

¹ System der Ethik, vol. II. p. 437.

“There can be no serious thought of appointing or dismissing by ballot the directors who are to superintend the work of the community according to the necessity and according to the public opinion of the voters. Every one can easily picture to himself the results of such elections if they were to be carried out in the entire social body: the party strifes, quarrels, contentions, cheating, public denunciation, which would then ensue even in the smallest circles—even in the supposition that there would be no diversity of material interests and no ill-will—from the difference of opinion on points of mere convenience, usefulness, and possibility alone.”