BANKRUPTCY OF THE SOCIALIST IDEAL
BUT even allowing the assertion (evidently unfounded as it is, and contrary to the facts of human nature) that it is better for people to live in towns and to do compulsory machine work in factories rather than to live in villages and work freely at handicrafts, there remains, in the very ideal itself, to which the men of science tell us the economic revolution is leading, an insoluble contradiction.The ideal is that the workers, having become the masters of all the means of production, are to obtain all the comforts and pleasures now possessed by well-to-do people.They will all be well clothed, and housed, and well nourished, and will all walk on electrically lighted, asphalt streets, and frequent concerts and theaters, and read papers and books, and ride on motor cars, etc.But that everybody may have certain things, the production of those things must be apportioned, and consequently it must be decided how long each workman is to work.
How is that to be decided?
Statistics may show (though very imperfectly) what people require in a society fettered by capital, by competition, and by want.But no statistics can show how much is wanted and what articles are needed to satisfy the demand in a society where the means of production will belong to the society itself-that is, where the people will be free.
The demands in such a society cannot be defined, and they will always infinitely exceed the possibility of satisying them.Everybody will wish to have all that the richest now possesses, and, therefore, it is quite impossible to define the quantity of goods that such a society will require.
Furthermore, how are people to be induced to work at articles which some consider necessary and others consider unnecessary or even harmful?
If it be found necessary for everybody to work, say six hours a day, in order to satisfy the requirements of the society, who in a free society can compel a man work those six hours, if he knows that part of the time is spent in producing things he considers unnecessary or even harmful?
It is undeniable that under the present state of things most varied articles are produced with great economy of exertion, thanks to machinery, and thanks especially to the division of labor which has been brought to an extreme nicety and carried to the highest perfection, and that those articles are profitable to the manufacturers, and that we find them convenient and pleasant to use.But the fact that these articles are well made and are produced with little expenditure of strength, that they are profitable to the capitalists and convenient for us, does not prove that free men would, without compulsion, continue to produce them.There is no doubt that Krupp, with the present division of labor, makes admirable cannons very quickly and artfully; N.M.very quickly and artfully produces silk materials; X, Y.and Z.
produce toilet-scents, powder to preserve the complexion, or glazed packs of cards, and K.produces whiskey of choice flavor, etc.; and, no doubt, both for those who want these articles and for the owners of the factories in which they are made it is very advantageous.But cannons and scents and whiskey are wanted by those who wish to obtain control of the Chinese market, or who like to get drunk, or are concerned about their complexions;but there will be some who consider the production of these articles harmful.And there will always be people who consider that besides these articles, exhibitions, academies, beer and beef are unnecessary and even harmful.How are these people to be made to participate in the production of such articles?
