SOME MORE “EQUALITY”
My dear John,
If you want to see how mad a man can get and still live, ask the
soap-box orator if Socialism proposes to pay all kinds of workers the
same wage. Tell him that you have heard that, in the Co-operative
Commonwealth, there will be absolute equality of remuneration.
If you put this question to the street-corner agitator, I’ll promise
that you will get all that you bargained for and more. But don’t
be frightened by his torrent of wrath and indignation. Quietly but
persistently press the question home. Have your quotations where
you can get at them easily, and be sure that they are strictly
“scientific”--that you have the right page of the book from which they
have been taken. If you will do this, and maintain your equanimity, you
can very soon take the wind out of the soap-boxer’s sails, because,
whatever some Socialists say to the contrary, equality of remuneration
is the only possible outcome of the socialistic system, and there are
plenty of simon-pure Marxists who admit as much.
In my last letter I told you what Socialism means by “equality of
opportunity,” and I proved the truth of my statements by citing
quotations the authenticity of which no Socialist can deny. Not one of
these quotations was “torn from its context,” or otherwise mutilated,
though there may be some Socialists who will tell you that this is what
has happened.
Having seen that “equality of opportunity” means merely the opportunity
to do the things that meet the approval of the bosses, we will now
consider the question of equality of reward; and again we shall let the
Socialists themselves tell us what Socialism really means to do towards
“solving” the wage problem.
In the first place, let us refer to Karl Marx, for his orthodoxy
is probably above suspicion. We find that the great master of the
socialistic philosophy is a little uncertain as to what may happen
during the transitional period between capitalism and the realization
of the Socialist ideal. At this stage, he says, there may be
inequalities in rights, including remuneration, but about the ultimate
effect of collectivism, he has no such doubt. “In a higher phase
of communist society,” he says, “after the slavish subordination
of the individual under divisions of labor and consequently the
opposition between mental and bodily work has disappeared ... after
the individual has become more perfect in every respect ... then only
... society may inscribe on its banner: ‘From each one according to
his abilities, to each one according to his needs.’” (“Zur Kritik des
sozialdemokratischen Parteiprogramms.”)
It is difficult to construe this statement of Marx to mean anything
except that the end of Socialism is practically complete equality in
matters of reward. Certainly this is the idea which Mr. Spargo has
formed from his study of the Marxist philosophy, for he tells us very
definitely in his book, “Socialism” (p. 233), that “it may be freely
admitted that the ideal to be aimed at ultimately must be approximate
equality of income.”
George Bernard Shaw, the eminent English Socialist, also admits that
equality is the ultimate aim of Marxism. In a paper read before the
Fabian Society, in 1910, and published in the _Fabian News_ (January,
1911), Mr. Shaw defines Socialism as “a state of society in which the
income of the country would be divided equally among the inhabitants,
without regard to character, industry or any other consideration except
that they were human beings.”
And, that there might be no misunderstanding about his attitude toward
this question, Mr. Shaw, talking to an interviewer for _The Labor
Leader_, said (March 31, 1912): “Socialism is the system of society
where all the income of the country is to be divided up in exactly
equal portions; every one to have it, whether idle or industrious,
young or old, good or bad ...; anyone who does not believe that, is
not a Socialist.... Those are the conditions on which I say I am a
Socialist. Those are the conditions on which Society should stand. The
point is not whether they are reasonable conditions or not. They are
the only workable conditions.”
Mr. Shaw seemed to think it necessary to disarm possible criticism
by admitting that the conditions he proposes might be called
“unreasonable.” His fears are groundless. We do not dub his proposition
“unreasonable”--indeed, it embodies the only reasonable conditions
under which Socialism could be operated. The only unreasonable thing
about it is that it absolutely defies any attempt to bring it into
harmony with that other working proposition of Marxism: that every
worker shall receive the full products of his labor. If all are to
get the same reward, whether idle or industrious, whether valuable or
valueless to the community, it necessarily follows that some portion of
the proceeds of the industrious workers’ labor must go to the worker
whose labor has been profitless.
Discouraging as such a system of payment would be to industry and
initiative, it still is, as a matter of fact, the only system that
Socialism can adopt if it is to show any regard for the preservation of
the collective character of the State.
If all workers are paid alike, it is possible that a certain degree of
equality may be maintained. If, as Blatchford says in “Merrie England”
(p. 103), “the only difference between a Prime Minister and a collier
would be the difference of rank and occupation,” the mere worker may
feel that he is living in a State in which class distinction has been
largely eliminated. If, on the other hand, workers are to be paid
according to the nature and value of their productions, how long do
you think it will be before a new set of class distinctions will be
created? How long will it be before the skilled workman who draws the
fattest pay envelope will become the aristocrat, or, at least, will
assume a class distinction mid-way between the bossing class and the
class of unskilled laborers?
The Socialists themselves have recognized the danger that the problem
of remuneration presents, and have tried to anticipate some of its
difficulties by suggesting possible solutions. The sophists among them,
of course, have sought to evade the issue, thus leaving the inquirer
to imagine that this question, like all the other difficulties that
confront the Collectivist, will settle itself when the moment of
emergency arises. The more honest and consistent Socialists, however,
are quite frank in their admission that equality of reward is the
inevitable consequence of Collectivism. Even Spargo, in the quotation
already referred to, admits that class formation must take place and
the old problems incidental to economic inequality reappear under
anything less than an “approximate equality of income.”
Mrs. Annie Besant, who is a much-quoted Socialist, takes the same
stand. “Controversy,” she says (“Fabian Essays,” pp. 163-164), “will
probably arise as to the division: shall all shares be equal, or shall
the workers receive in proportion to the proposed dignity or indignity
of their work? Inequality would be odious.... The impossibility of
estimating the separate value of each man’s labor with any really valid
result, the friction which would arise, the jealousies which would be
provoked, the inevitable discontent, favoritism, and jobbery that would
prevail; all these things will drive the Communal Council into the
right path--equal remuneration of all workers.”
And yet as early as 1830--years before Marx and Engels had begun to
prepare their “Communist Manifesto”--the French Communists addressed a
manifesto to the Chamber of Deputies in which it was stated that the
equal division of property would constitute “a greater violence, a more
revolting injustice, than the unequal division which was originally
effected by force of arms, by conquest.”
The Socialist of the present day may well learn wisdom from the logic
of his French predecessors. It is a self-evident fact that production
must be most disastrously effected by equality of distribution. Where
is the incentive to come from if the industrious or the highly skilled
man is to be mulcted of a share of his earnings that it may be used
to equalize things with the “work-shy,” who happens to be indisposed
to earn a living for himself? As one writer suggests, “it is to be no
longer a question of ‘Every man for himself, and the devil take the
hindmost,’ but we are to go to the opposite extreme and endeavor to
establish an equally false doctrine of ‘Every man for his neighbor, and
the devil take the foremost.’”
Marx seemingly attempts to provide for this contingency by preaching
the doctrine embraced in the formula, “From each according to his
ability, to each according to his needs.” Apparently, he recognizes
that it will be impossible to evade the inequalities naturally existing
between different individuals, and he endeavors to neutralize these
natural advantages by supposing that each is to produce “according to
his ability.”
But, my dear John, you mustn’t be deluded by the suggestion that there
is a difference in these propositions. In both cases, the neutralizing
profits are to be taken from the most efficient producers and given
to those who are less efficient. If this were done there would soon
be an end to the Socialist promise that every worker is to get the
full product of his labor. If this rule of remuneration were to become
operative, the surplus product needed to supply the bad or idle worker
with the means of securing a reward “according to his needs,” would be
stolen from the proceeds of the industry of the more capable “comrades.”
Yet H. M. Hyndman, the prominent English Socialist, sees no objection
to this arrangement. In a letter contributed to the London _Daily
Telegraph_ (October 14, 1907), Mr. Hyndman wrote:
“Socialism will recognize no difference as to the share of the general
product between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ workman, but will give both
every opportunity to make themselves more valuable citizens and
comrades. Good and bad will alike be doing their social best for the
community, and will be entitled to their full participation in the
enjoyment of the wealth created by the work of the whole body.”
Mr. Hyndman seems to assume that, under such a system of production,
there would be enough to go round--enough to satisfy all the wants of
every member of the community. Do you think this possible?
Suppose that Socialism were adopted to-morrow, and that you, knowing
that your livelihood was assured, were working side by side with a man
who was producing about half as much as you. Would the fact that his
sloth and incapacity did not count against him inspire you to do your
best work, especially when you realized that the surplus product of
your toil was fated to compensate him for his failure to “make good”?
It makes little difference from what point of view Socialism attempts
to solve its problem of remunerating the worker. No matter which
course it pursues, it courts disaster. Whether it rewards all equally
or continues to recognize the existence of natural inequalities, it
remains a system under which freedom is impossible.
Do you like the prospect, John?