SOCIALISM

New Zealand Tablet, 16 July 1908, Page 10

SOCIALISM

ORGANISATION [OF LABOUR; THE QUESTION OF REMUNERATION

(Concluded from last week.)

But I have not yet done with the work of the central authority. When they have determined the amount and variety of articles to be produced, they have got to see that each industry has its proper quota of workers, each located in the district where the work is done. It will be no use estimating how many yards of cotton or loaves of bread the community will need if the authority is not able to depend upon a sufficient number of workers to produce them, and if it cannot insist upon thft permanence of the working population where they are produced. Therefore they must in some way be able to determine the number of people who must (to keep to my illustration) engage in the cotton industry and in the various occupations that will be needed to produce the bread ; and they will need the authority to insist upon this quota of workers being supplied and kept in the localities arranged for, or their labors will be entirely nullified, their calculations brought to naught, the whole machinery of production upset.

This brings me to the further questions : How will this" labor be supplied? and how will these offices be manned? We at once meet a difficulty that Socialists find some trouble in answering, for underlying it is the problem of assigning to each person in the State the work he has to do. Remember that in the Socialist State we shall all have the same education, the same upbringing, the same start. At such times as it becomes necessary to join the army of workers, our vocation in life must be settled ; the most vital question to every one must be answered— viz., What is my job to be? How will this be done? Will each person choose Ins own work, or will it be chosen for him— a labor that, willingly or unwillingly, he must take up? Many Socialists maintain that each one must be Tree to choose "for himself, i Now, note, first of all, that in the case where each one has liberty to choose his work for himself, the problem of organising production, which, as we have seen, is an absolute necessity, will becorae an impossibility, for there will be no means

1 Bebel, 'Die Frau. 'Each one determines for " himself in. what occupation he wishes to be employed.' Ferri ('Socialism arid Positive Science,' p. 16) argues that men will ' prefer' the work for which .they feel they have the most ability ' Kautzky (' Morrow of the Social Revolution,' pp.. 16-17) : ' As the workers, of course,- will not be drafted- into the different branches of-pro-duction irrespective of their wishes, it may well turn out that some will have a superfluity of labor while others will suffer from scarcity. '

of depending upon having a sufficient quantify of workers in a particular branch of industry at a given time. If, for instance, the central authority estimates the coal production necessary for, say, a year at a given amount, it will be necessary to have a given proportion of miners to get it out. But ff, as is not unnatural, that number of men may not be willing to engage in the laborious and painful task of extracting coal, their estimates would be unrealised and the whole course of manufactures interfered with. For if occupation is to be a matter of choice, which occupations do you think will be most sought after? Will men prefer to work in evil-smelling chemical works, in digging out sewers, in cleaning chimneys, in coal mines or in blast furnaces, to working, say, as gardeners, or clerks, or attendants in shops — I say nothing of desiring the places of power and influence that must exist even in a Socialist Commonwealth. Well, working men are very human, and they must answer that question for themselves. If, on the other hand, the central authority or the local authority is to decide what occupations each one must follow, what an intolerable slavery it will result in ! At present we have some freedom — at the outset of life there is a choice of some kind — and the man of energy and ambition can generally escape from work he dislikes ; he can change his employer, or even find another occupation. In the Socialist State, if work is assigned, he will have to obey ; for only thus can the given quantity of labor in each industry be maintained. Some Socialists endeavor to get out of this difficulty by saying that the more objectionable occupations will be better remunerated, and that the workers in them will only have to work very short hours. But, if the hours of labor are shortened, more men will be needed to do • the same work ; so that the lowest and most debasing forms of work would need great numbers ot workers, who would thus be withdrawn from higher industries, which in turn would be crippled. And no matter how the difficulty was determined, it is quite clear that the great principle of equality of rights and equality in the conditions of life would not be maintained. Furthermore, to reduce the amount of work or raise the pay for these lower occupations would be a direct denial of the Marxian principle of value (upon which the whole doctrine of Social Democracy rests), which is that all socially necessary labor is worth the same ; and that, no matter how men are employed, equal amounts of such labor are equal in exchange value. Besides, even with the solutions offered, we are confronted with this difficulty : that the army of miners, sewer-diggers, stable-cleaners, and street-sweepers would be called upon to work for a shorter time for the same or better pay than is given to the artist or physician.

Bebcl has found another solution. He says that the citizen of the Socialist State will be so educated that he will be capable of undertaking, not one, but any of the duties in a Socialist State ; so that in the department of health, say, the man who one day empties the refuse into the Communal refuse-cart may on another day feel your pulse and prescribe for your sickness. Or, in the department of defence, he may take his place as commander in the army that but lately knew him as a very humble private. He saysi : ' It is not at all improbable that as organisation progresses, and the thorough education of all members of the social body advances, 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.' And Marx asserts that his education in the new State will confer upon the workman an ' absolute availability,'; that is to say, will make him available for any and every emergency. Ramsay Macdonald, in ' Socialism and Society, 1 takes the term ' handy man ' as used for the sailor, and employs it to suggest how, in a changed society, a man would have mightily increased powers. Well, is this sense, or is it nonsense? Take, for instance, the profession of medicine, in which the best years of a man's life may well be spent in getting a proficiency in one special branch ; then consider how many different forms of specialism are now practised ; and one must realise how utterly impracticable it is for a man to become proficient, not only in one branch of it, as surgery, or medicine, but even in one or two of its subdivisions, And yet Socialist thinkers are not afraid to venture the proposition that it ?s possible so to educate a man that he may in turn undertake the labors that fall upon the practitioners in every branch of the science and art of healing ! Or, to use another illustration, they assume that a man will be able to undertake the duties of fireman, tackier, cardroom-hand, weaver, spinner, accountant, or manager in a cotton mill !

1 ' Die Frau.

Are we far wrong in saying that mankind is not very likely to change much,- and that not only is it unlikely that we shall ever be so omniscient and all-powerful, but that we shall all be as keen in those days to get hold of a soft job, as we are now?

Before I leave this subject, let me ask who is going to decide on the fitness or unfitness of an individual to follow a given vocation or to occupy a given post? The unfortunate authority whose task this is will need the wisdom of Solomon and. the patience of Job, ' and yet be unsuccessful in pleasing the community. For if I, thirsting to achieve great things in' the realm of science or of art, find myself adjudged to be a letter-carrier or a bricklayer, do you suppose I shall be satisfied? Or is it not more likely that I shall seek out the other unfortunates who, like myself, have been given hard labor, arid make common cause with them in fault-finding and in agitating against the injustice we feel done to us? lam saying nothing now about the appointments at the very top of the tree. , I don't know how they will be made, nor does it matter, for I think I may leave that branch of the subject for each one to puzzle out for himself the problems it suggests.

THE PAY-SHEETS OF A SOCIALIST STATE

I have barely touched on the question of remuneration, but it will constitute one of the great difficulties in the Socialist State. How is labor to be rewarded under Socialism? This question is answered variously by different authorities. Some admit that it would be ridiculous to measure all services by the same standard — to determine that the poorest type of laborer, slouching through his ordained portion of work, should be paid exactly the same as the energetic, brainy man, giving expert and valuable aid in the higher functions of the social organism. And ye£botgr are citizen owners of the property, both give equal labor tinie> How, then, shall any just distinction be made? Logically there cannot, and many Socialists hold that remuneration should bethe same for all. But they argue that this will inflict rib" "injustice, as each citizen will be so amply rewarded that there will be no room for discontent. Cathrein (' Socialism,' p. 267) quotes from Stern (' Thesen,' pp. 12, 13), the following description of life in the Socialist State. ' Every one,' says Stern, ' who can show that he has performed a certain amount of labor has the most unlimited right to any species of consumable goods in any quantity he may choose to fix. He draws his clothing from th<* public stores, he dines at the public hotel on what he" pleases 1 ; or", if he prefers, he may dine at home in a highly comfortable residence, which is in communication with the public hotels (by telephone, pneumatic-tube, and by whatever other inventions may be made in the meantime), whence he may in the most convenient way order his meals, just as he pleases; or, if he prefers, he may have them prepared at home, or he may prepare them himself.'

Now, this is an alluring picture, but, as Cathrein pertinently observes, Stern omits to say who is going to serve his pictureman. Who is going to wait on him, cook for him, provide his drinks for him, and generally act as his servant? Yet this is a very important .question to settle before the delights of such an existence can be regarded as practicable.

Another important consideration arises here — namely, what motives will operate to produce that quality of cheerful and energetic labor with which Socialists are so fond of endowing their citizens? or, rather, may we not ask, Will there not be many motives for taking things easy?

In the first place, there will not be the stimulus of increased reward; the worker will have no direct personal interest in doing particularly well; in the second place, the- man who sets too hard a pace at work is not likely to be very, popular. There- would rather be a tendency to take -things easy, when every necessity of life was assured, and neither landlord nor shopkeeper would come for their weekly pay. Thus the standard of, production would.be in danger of being lowered, and the well-being of .the community thereby damaged.

So that, after this most cursory and necessarily imperfect consideration .of only a few pf the difficulties (there are. many others) in the way of realising the Socialist theory, difficulties which seem insurmountable, which show Socialism to be -impossible, or at least impracticable, a political and economic will-o'-the-wisp, may we not, as a. practical conclusion,. challenge'. the confident claim of Socialists to have found the one and. only solution of social ills?

It is true that many Socialists are impatient of the objections set forth. It is a favorite device of English Socialists to pour ridicule upon them as applying only "to what they call Utopian schemes. ~ But, if it is true that the schemes are Utopian, it is because of the nature of Socialism, because that is the funda-

mental defect of Socialism. If the State is organised on a Collectivist basis, all the objections here set forth are real objections, and no amount of ridicule will enable. Socialists to escape from them.

The English Socialists, especially those of the school of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, should rather be classed as ' Nebulists,' because their great refuge in face of difficulty is apt to be a vagu,e, uncertain, and cloudy speculation. Their favorite device is to assure you that Society will never endure more Socialism at a given moment than it wishesi (which is true, but not very deep), or that cvery-difficulty will solve itself (which may be true, but is not self-evident).

Socialists disregard the vast amount of human misery that springs solely from human frailty, and no economic change will so alter human nature as to avoid this. Wealth, or even comfort, is no guarantee against vice and passion, as the records of life in the wealthy and comfortable classes of society abundantly testify. There is no economic remedy for evils of this type — the remedy is a moral one, as I hope elsewhere to show.

Under these circumstances, seeing that Socialism is like the patent pill (which, according to its advertisement, will cure. every evil, but, according to its results, cannot and does not), ought we as sensible beings to engage in political association with those who profess it as a political creed.' Or ought we not rather to set before ourselves some practical end — to see if there be no other way of remedying such evils of our present system as are capable of being remedied? For we must keep in mind that many of the evils arise, as I have said, from defects of human character, from the absence of those very principles which the Christian religion inculcates. Christianity, say many Socialists, has failed to remedy them. But this is not true ; could we induce mankind to be Christians, all the troubles of our social system would be greatly lessened. It is the old experience of the ideal and the real. Men may know and admire the perfect way — and follow the imperfect. But if Christianity is not a force strong enough to keep the world straight, what moral force is going to do more? Without Christianity the greater part of mankind would sink into mere animals, as they did in those great pagan empires that have passed away.

The fact is that Socialists are in error in alleging that there is no middle way between extreme Individualism and Socialism. Much can be done, under our present system, to improve the lot of humanity, by such legislation as will humanise the conditions of labor, secure a more equitable distribution of the products of labor, and make more tolerable and enjoyable and hopeful the life of the worker. Great progress has been made in the last halfcentury, as even many Socialists admit, and no doubt much more will be made by judicious legislation, with good will and wise forethought.