§ VII. Impossibility of the Social Organization of Labor

Another flaw in the socialistic system is the tacit supposition that all kinds of work and all services for the benefit of society may be reduced to one comprehensive labor system. This supposition is erroneous. There will be always a large number of personal services, which, by their very nature, cannot be brought into any system, unless the world is to be governed by strict military rule. Such are, for instance, all those services which immediately regard the care of the body—food, clothing, cleanliness, cooking, housekeeping, washing, mending, etc. Shall every one bring his coat to the “social” tailor to be mended? Must every one present himself to the state barber and hairdresser for his toilet? Must every one consign his linens to the public laundries? We must bear in mind that the relation between masters and servants, and, in short, the entire wage system, is utterly repudiated by the principles of socialism. And if in a family, to crown the difficulty, the housewife is sick or otherwise unfit for work, or happens to die, do socialists imagine that her services may be substituted in the state of the future by mechanical means? In answer to this difficulty they point to our present system of boarding-houses and_ hotels, where all parties at all times can be served according to their wishes, and lack no earthly comforts. Why, then, they say, could not all such personal services be rendered in the socialistic state by means of public kitchens and dining-halls, by public laundries and workshops on a large scale?

To say nothing of the disintegration of family life which would arise from such a public boarding system, would it not be downright slavery if every one were altogether dependent upon public institutions for the satisfaction of his personal wants? Besides, we can hardly believe that such public boarding institutions, laundries, etc., would give general satisfaction. Our present hotel and boarding system is conducted on quite a different principle. It consists of private institutions, whose proprietors or directors have the greatest interest to attract guests and to satisfy, as far as possible, all their reasonable wishes; for if the guests are dissatisfied with the treatment accorded them and the prices they pay, they will go elsewhere, and thus the hotel-keeper or landlord will lose his customers, and his competitors will profit by his loss.

The socialist eating-houses, on the contrary, would be public institutions conducted by public officials, who would draw their necessaries from the public magazines, and would have no competition to fear. Would such public state cooks, butlers, waiters, etc., be as eager to satisfy their guests as the officials of our private hotels? We doubt it very much. The “comrade” cook or waiter would be independent of his guests, and if the latter were dissatisfied with his services he would have nothing to lose thereby. Nay, we fear that such socialistic institutions would be far behind our military kitchens. Let us suppose, moreover, that all these officials would have to change their offices from time to time, so that no one would understand anything thoroughly—that he who is cook to-day should be waiter to-morrow, and laundryman next day, and then butler, and finally return again to the kitchen, but only for so long a time as either his own caprice or public authority would keep him in that office. But enough of absurdity.

This difficulty did not escape the notice of Schäffle. He is of the opinion that socialists could leave such personal services to private enterprise. Such a policy, however, would open a wide gap in the principles of socialism, which intends to remove every form of wage-labor. If socialists would leave personal services to private enterprise, they must tolerate at least the existence of paid servants. Thus also many hands would be withdrawn from the national production; for persons who would devote themselves to the performance of such private services could not be expected at the same time to take part in the social industry. Besides, the equality of the conditions of life would be destroyed if private services were permitted; for thus it would be possible for some such servants, by superior ability, favorable circumstances, or ingenuity, to procure a large income, while another private servant would either have a miserable existence or be constrained to return to the common ranks of producers. In another place, however, Schäffle¹ says that private enterprise would be altogether excluded in the socialist commonwealth, and that all those laborers who would not take an immediate part in the social production, as artists, for instance, would receive a public salary. We may readily grant that the income arising from such personal services would never attain such dimensions as that arising from the modern accumulations of capital; yet the general principle of socialism—that only public labor paid by the state is to be tolerated—would thus be subverted.

¹ Quintessence, p. 5.