YOU “WAGE SLAVES”!
My dear Smith,
If you were to tell the soap-boxer that Socialism is an impracticable
scheme, and that it couldn’t “make good” whether we all wanted it or
not, he would become very indignant and would probably call you a
“blind fool,” if he did not shower upon you still more vituperative
epithets. If you ever find yourself in such a position, don’t let
the soap-boxer place you on the defensive. When you talk about the
impracticability of Socialism you put the Socialist just where he
doesn’t want to be, and, if you follow up your attack consistently
and strenuously, you will have him on the run before you know it.
Socialists like to theorize. They like to talk to people who don’t
ask for too many details, but they have little liking for the man who
demands definite plans and accurate specifications.
You have a little house in a new suburban section. It is a small house
and it has a mortgage on it, but you are paying for it gradually and
it won’t be many years before it will be all your own. Even now the
payments and all the charges together call for a smaller monthly
expenditure than would be required if you rented a home not nearly as
comfortable as this one.
Now, John, suppose I were to come to you and tell you that if you
would let me tear down your house I would build you another somewhere
else. Wouldn’t you be likely to ask me where the new house was to be
located, and what guarantee I would give you that it would be a more
satisfactory place of abode than the one which you now occupy? No
matter how well you may know me--no matter how much confidence you
may have in me as an individual--unless you are a very careless or a
very stupid person, you will refuse to consent to any change in your
domestic arrangements until you are certain that the proposition will
be advantageous to you.
Such caution is entirely reasonable; this is the attitude you should
take; yet Socialism asks you to disregard all such conditions. It
expects you to believe that, when everything that represents modern
civilization has been thrown into a vast melting-pot called “The
Revolution,” something will come out of it that will be very much to
your profit. They won’t tell you how this is to be brought about. They
themselves have a vague idea in regard to what kind of a society we are
to evolve into, and they try to describe it to you under the general
terms of the “Co-operative Commonwealth.” As a matter of fact, however,
it is almost impossible to find any two Socialists who will agree, even
as to the main points of their program, and some of the socialistic
leaders are honest enough to admit that there is a poor chance that
they would be able to carry out this program successfully, even if
given the best of opportunities. For example, Edward Bernstein, who is
a sufficiently good Socialist to be selected to represent his party
in the German Reichstag, admits that, “_Socialism could not keep its
promise if it were placed in power to-morrow._”
Remember this the next time the soap-box orator calls you a “wage
slave.” Ask for specifications. Insist upon his telling you if
Socialism would not introduce as hopeless a form of slavery as the
world has ever known, and--if not, why not?
It is a catchy phrase, the term “wage slave.” It is a telling taunt
that does good service for Socialism wherever there are people simple
enough to be imposed upon. Yet if you, who are not a Socialist,
will study this question you can easily turn the tables upon the
limber-tongued agitator in a way to make him very unhappy.
In the first place, the use of the term “wage slave” would naturally
lead us to suppose that, under Socialism, men will no longer work for a
wage; that they will become their own masters, employing themselves and
paying themselves the full product of their labor; in a word, that each
will be free with a freedom such as man has never before experienced.
Knowing that this is the plan proposed by many prominent Socialist
thinkers, it is somewhat surprising to find publications purporting to
represent Socialism still promising the worker a “wage.” It is true
that they have greatly increased the amount of his remuneration until
they promise him anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000 a year, but they
combine to talk about the “wages” he will get.
What does this mean? Simply that under Socialism he will still be a
wage earner. He may receive labor checks instead of United States
currency--or something equivalent in value--but, if such a system
were to be carried out, he could have no more freedom than he enjoys
to-day and from every indication it is not impossible that he might
have considerably less. A man is no less a wage slave because he works
for 90,000,000 and himself, than he is when he is employed by a single
individual. This is a fact that Socialism overlooks.
Under the present system a man is free to choose his own method of
livelihood. If he does not like one trade, he can learn another. If he
wants to get out of the industrial sphere altogether and enter upon a
professional career, there are methods of accomplishing this purpose
within his reach, if he is willing to work hard enough to attain that
end. It is true that there are certain restrictions under existing
labor conditions--the area of selection is not as wide as it might be,
yet there is a great deal more scope for the development of individual
preference to-day than there could possibly be under Socialism.
Let us see for ourselves.
Socialism provides for the collective ownership of all means of
production, distribution and exchange. This means that the State--using
the term as “collective” State, of course--would organize all these
industries and would operate them upon a collective, which means a
democratic, basis. Under such conditions it is doubtless true that
every man would have an equal opportunity to earn a living, but it is
absurd for anybody to assert that this equality of opportunity would
also mean absolute freedom of choice.
If you want evidence in support of this statement, you can get it--and
Socialist testimony at that.
In 1906, the Fabian Society of London--an organization composed of
absolutely orthodox Socialists--issued a leaflet entitled, “Socialism
and Labor Policy.” Let us see what they have to say about the freedom
of choice we shall have under the collective régime.
“Everybody should have a legal right to an opportunity of earning his
living in the society in which he has been born,” we read, “but no one
should or could have the right to ask that he should be employed at the
particular job which suits his peculiar taste and temperament. Each of
us must be prepared to do the work which Society wants doing, or take
the consequences of refusal.”
Again, Sydney Webb, in his “Basis and Policy of Socialism” (p. 71),
says:
“Instead of converting every man into an independent producer, working
when he likes and where he likes, we aim at enrolling every able-bodied
person directly in the service of the community, for such duties and
under such kind of organization, local or national, as may be suitable
to his capacity and social function. In fact, so far are we from
seeking to abolish the wage system, so understood, that we wish to
bring under it all those who now escape from it--the employers, and
those who live on rent or interest--and so make it universal. If a man
wants freedom to work or not to work just as he likes, he had better
emigrate to Robinson Crusoe’s island, or else become a millionaire.
To suppose that the industrial affairs of a complicated industrial
State can be run without strict subordination and discipline, without
obedience to orders, and without definite allowances for maintenance is
to dream not of Socialism, but of Anarchism.”
And Sydney Webb is not alone in these conclusions. Ramsay MacDonald,
who is certainly one of the most conservative of Socialists, expresses
the same spirit when he tells us that “trade must be organized like a
fleet or education system” (“Socialism and Society,” p. 172); while
Suthers answers this particular “objection” by expressing the most
genuine contempt for those who would protest against the kind of
slavery that collectivism would introduce. He reminds us that the
people themselves would then be masters. Who would oppress the people?
The people themselves? Like so many other Socialists, he will not see
that slavery is slavery under whatever guise it may operate.
The only attempts to escape this proposition have been most utopian
in character. Bebel, for example, asks us to believe that, in a
Socialist State, disagreeable work will be accomplished chiefly
by means of mechanical devices and that such undesirable tasks as
remained, and which could be performed only by personal action, would
be freely undertaken, as an effect of the unselfish spirit which will
prevail among the workers of the future. He even suggests that it
will be possible to inaugurate a kind of changing-off system so that
each member of society may in his turn submit to assignment to the
performance of the more disagreeable duties.
While this suggestion may be equitable in theory, it is of no practical
value. Picture to yourself what kind of a community we should have
if each individual was compelled to submit himself by a changing-off
system to the most disagreeable avocations that you can imagine. Can
you say that “freedom” could exist under such a régime? Do you think
that such a system is possible outside of the penitentiary?
Of still greater absurdity is Bebel’s promise (“Woman,” p. 271) that
the members of the social body shall become so perfectly developed
that, “without distinction of sex,” they “shall undertake all
functions” of society. As Cathrein says (p. 289), “this statement can
hardly be said to deserve a refutation.”
“Let us only imagine what such industrial and technical ability
supposes,” he continues. “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 program is any
thorough knowledge of anything possible?”
You know, John, that the efficient worker is the man who has mastered
a trade thoroughly, and you also know that the maintenance of his
efficiency depends upon his constant attention to the ever-changing
details of his particular trade. This means the application of a
lifetime, yet Socialists tell us that, merely by the adoption of the
collective system, all men will become so perfectly proficient in
everything that they will be fitted to undertake every kind of work.
No, John, this is not a joke! I did not find it in _Puck_ or _Judge_.
It is Bebel and other equally bright lights of the Socialist
philosophy, who are responsible for these assertions. Even Marx himself
endeavors to prove (“Capital,” p. 453) that the “separate individual”
will be replaced by the “totally-developed individual,” and this
development will confer upon the workman “absolute availability” for
everything. If this is not a flight of imagination worthy of our old
friend Baron Munchausen, what is it? Even Professor Paulsen, who cannot
be called an anti-Socialist, protests in his “System of Ethics” (Vol.
II, p. 437) against the equalizing tendencies shown by those who are
trying to picture the future Co-operative Commonwealth.
“In the society of the future,” he says, “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 programs 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 with
the railroad department, in the mining and 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, drafts designs for machines
or issues general edicts on the quantity and quality of the social
productions.”
So, you “wage slaves,” you have been told what is in store for you.
The utopian promises of some Socialist apologists are too ridiculous
to be credited by a sane individual. The only thing that remains is
the course which Sydney Webb and Ramsay MacDonald have outlined. The
worker will still work for a wage. The officials of the new State will
sanction the selection of his employment. He may take it or leave it,
live or starve to death, for there will be but one master to whom he
can turn for a job--the omnipotent State. It is the State that will
tell him what he is permitted to do, and he will have no right save
that of strict obedience.
As the author of “The Case Against Socialism” says (pp. 290-1): “A man
might desire to be an electrical engineer. ‘No vacancies,’ says the
State. ‘Ah, but I am sure that I can prove myself to be a much better
man than some whom you have chosen,’ replies the applicant. ‘No outside
competitions allowed,’ says the State. ‘We want masons, and a mason you
must be.’ ‘But have I no personal freedom?’ replies the man. The answer
is that he belongs to the State, and, if the official is in the mood to
graciously explain matters further, the man will probably be told that
it is difficult enough to organize labor at all, and that the attempt
would become impossible if anyone was so selfish as to consider such a
trivial matter as his own inclinations.”
What chance could a worker have under such circumstances? If he was not
satisfied, he would simply have to pocket his dissatisfaction and make
the best of it. What do you think of a body of men who, while planning
this fate for the American worker, have the nerve to talk to him about
“wage slavery”! Could anything be worse than this slavery with the
State as a master?