LABOR’S FULL PRODUCT
My dear Smith,
There is a good reason why the Socialists are unwilling to tell you
just what their State will be, or how it will work. _They themselves do
not know._
You can divide the present-day Socialists into two classes. The best
of them are utopian dreamers--theorists who hope that things will work
out all right, and who are willing to take a chance. The worst of them
are mere office-seekers, eager for place or pelf, and willing to become
special pleaders for the oppressed in return for their votes.
There was a time when the Socialists were actuated by a high and
unselfish ideal. It was a fallacious ideal, it is true. They were
fighting for principles that would have worked the ruin of the nations
had they been put into practice. But, as you know, a man can be both
sincere and wrong at the same time. The early Socialists were sincere,
even though they were wrong. But those Socialists of to-day who have
turned the philosophy of Socialism into a purely political movement,
and who do not ask you to believe as they do so long as you vote as
they want you to vote, have neither high ideals nor good principles.
They are just as bad political grafters as have ever been harbored by
any of the old political parties.
If the Socialists do not know much about the practical operations of
their utopian commonwealth, however, we can work out the problem for
ourselves. All that it is necessary to do, John, is to collect the
different pieces of the Socialist program and fit them together, just
as you did the jig-saw puzzles with which you used to amuse yourself
when a boy.
For example, let us take still another phase of the Socialist promise
to see that every man shall get the full product of his labor.
The Socialists have been quick to realize that this fallacy is the best
vote-catching device that they have yet invented. “You make it all,”
they explain, “and it is all yours.”
“Yes, it is all yours!” they declare, “but do you get it? No, you do
not begin to get all of your earnings. If you are very lucky you may
get one-third of what you earn; if you are less lucky, you have to be
content with one-fifth. It is only under Socialism that you will get
_all_ your earnings.”
This is the promise that Blatchford makes in “Merrie England” (p. 189).
It is this that countless Socialist writers have promised. It is this
promise that is used as a text by practically every soap-box orator
in this country--or in any other, for that matter. “The right to the
entire product of labor and capital together!” That is the main tenet
of the gospel of Socialism.
Now, John, I am willing to admit for the sake of argument that there is
considerable justice in the worker’s demand for a larger portion of the
output of his industry. Of course, we cannot admit that he is entitled
to the entire output of labor and capital combined; but this point
need not delay us long, since he never will get it. He can’t expect
to have the full product now, and he needn’t expect to have it, even
if Socialism triumphs and the modern system of private ownership is
buried six feet underground. Neither Socialism nor any other system of
production will ever be able to make this promise good.
Do you see what this means? It simply shows that the Socialist is
trying to fool you with promises that can never be kept. He tells you
that he will give you the entire value of the product. He does not tell
you how he is going to find out how much it is, and he is also very
careful to conceal the fact that, even if he knew exactly how much the
value of your labor-time amounted to, he couldn’t give you the full
amount that you produce. He couldn’t do it to-day, nor a hundred years
from to-day, nor a million years from to-day, simply because it is a
proposition that is just as impossible as to make 2 plus 2 equal 5.
While the great mass of Socialist writers and speakers are so
unscrupulous that they continue to agree to espouse a policy which
they know they can never fulfil, there are other Socialists who are
more honest and who frankly admit that this program is entirely
impracticable. The latter are not the Socialists whose writings are
exploited for the instruction of possible converts, however. When a
man has caught Socialism and caught it bad, it is safe for him to read
what they have written; but, for the beginner, it is best to feed him
on the pre-digested and carefully censored output of the propaganda
committees.
The soap-box orator informs you that under Socialism all industry will
be owned collectively and will be conducted in the interests of the
workers exclusively. What does the worker imagine that this means? He
pictures himself as a part owner of the factory in which he works. He
sees himself dividing the profits of that manufacturing concern with
the 50 or 100 or 500 persons now constituting the working force of the
establishment. Believing that this is what Socialism promises to do for
him, he becomes interested immediately. Naturally the soap-box orator
doesn’t try to correct this impression.
Sydney Webb, however, tells a different story. He knows that Socialism
does not intend to do anything of this kind. Turn to “Fabian Tract No.
51” (p. 16), and you will read the following:
“The whole of our creed is that industry should be carried on, not for
the profit of those engaged in it, whether masters or men, but for
the benefit of the community. We recognize no special right in the
miners as such to enjoy the mineral wealth on which they work. The
Leicester boot operatives can put in no special claim to the profits
of the Leicester boot factory, nor the shop-man in the co-operative
store for the surplus of its year’s trading. It is not for the miners,
bootmakers, or shop-assistants, as such, that we Socialists claim the
control and the profits of industry, but for the citizens.”
This is quite a different proposition, isn’t it? Socialism doesn’t mean
that you are to be permitted to turn the factory in which you work into
a profit-producing concern for your own benefit. It does mean, however,
that the profit produced by all the concerns in the entire country
shall be lumped together, and, after all the losses and necessary
charges have been deducted, the sum left shall be divided among all the
people--a system under which you would receive one-fifty, one-seventy
or one-ninety millionth part, according to the population of the nation.
This puts the matter in a less attractive light, but we have by no
means fully disclosed the iniquity of those who are trying to fool the
voters with false promises. Let us now try to find out what charges
must be deducted from the total profits before this division can be
made.
Not all businesses are to-day successful. Some of them fail because
the people do not buy the articles which it was expected they would
buy, and it is quite possible that such mistakes might be made under
Socialism. It is entirely probable that some kind of mistakes would
be made, and that there would be approximately as great a proportion
of losses with collective management as we now have under individual
management. These items would, of course, have to be deducted before
the division of profits could be effected.
The Socialists claim that a large part of the profits of which the
worker is robbed, goes to meet the expenses of rent and interest,
two factors that would not have to be considered in the Co-operative
Commonwealth. They do not seem to take into account the fact that the
money applied to rent, interest and profit is not stored away, or
otherwise taken out of circulation, even to-day. The greater part of
this sum finds its way back to industry by providing for extensions in
business, renewals of machinery, enlargements of factories, and the
establishment of new industries.
There are items of expense that we cannot dodge even under Socialism.
Factories and machinery do not last forever. New methods must
constantly be adopted. An ever-increasing popular demand necessitates
an extension of manufacturing facilities. Do the Socialists expect us
to believe that, on the establishment of the Co-operative Commonwealth,
everything will be income and there will be no outlay--all profit and
no expenses?
Then we must provide for the payment of the huge army of Socialist
officials, for there will be practically no end to the number of
overseers, superintendents, clerks, bookkeepers, auditors, cashiers,
and statisticians--to say nothing of the host of minor officials--all
of whom will have to be paid at the same rate, to say the least, as the
laborers.
In talking about this kind of workers to-day, the Socialist agitator
is very apt to dub them a “non-producing class.” If you will examine
Socialist statistics carefully, you will find that the statisticians
almost invariably omit to consider the amount paid such workers as
an item of expense; that they are even likely to include the sum
represented by these salaries in the _profits_ of the employing class.
Should the time ever come when the Socialists themselves are called
upon to provide the pay-roll for the nation, they will discover that
the directive and executive workers, and all the persons employed to
carry out their part of the program, will call for the expenditure of
a tremendous sum of money. Tremendous as this amount would be to-day,
however, the present outlay for this purpose would be but a drop in the
bucket compared to the cost of the system that Socialism would have to
establish.
Let us see what the Socialists themselves--the more frank and honest
kind of Socialists--have to say about this matter.
Deville in “Socialism, Internationalism and Revolution,” says: “After
deducting from the product a portion to take the place of taxes,
a portion to replace the labor consumed, one to extend the scale
of production, one to insure against disasters, as floods, winds,
lightning, etc., one to support the incapable, one for administration,
one for sanitation, one for education, etc., the producers of both
sexes will distribute the balance among themselves in proportion of the
quantity of ordinary labor respectively furnished.”
Mrs. Besant, in “Fabian Essays” (p. 163), has very similar ideas upon
this point. She says:
“Out of the value of the communal produce must come rent of land
payable to the local authorities, rent of plant needed for working of
industries, wages advanced and fixed in the usual way, taxes, reserve
fund, accumulation fund, and the other charges necessary for the
carrying on of the communal business. All these deducted, the remaining
value should be divided among the communal workers as a ‘bonus.’”
A “bonus”? Yes, but would there be any bonus? These who are familiar
with the history of the labor movement in France will naturally recall
Louis Blanc’s unfortunate experiment with the National workshops.
In 1848 the Provisional Government issued a proclamation engaging to
guarantee work to all citizens and promising to put an end to the
sufferings of workmen by decreeing the formation of a permanent
Commission for the workers.
Louis Blanc, who was at the head of this movement to abolish all
profits of capital and to establish the perfect equality of all workers
“without considering skill or activity,” developed the National
Workshops scheme. At first the workmen threw themselves into the
project with great heartiness, even working overtime; but this was
merely a temporary condition. To aid the great tailoring workshop, the
government gave it an order to provide 25,000 uniforms for the National
Guard. The building in which the work was conducted was provided
absolutely free of cost and the government advanced all the capital
required in the experiment. The price agreed upon was to be eleven
francs per uniform. Each of the 1,500 workmen was given two francs a
day as “subsistence money,” and was promised his _pro rata_ share in
the profits.
But there were no profits. Instead, the uniforms actually cost, when
finished, sixteen francs apiece, and the government had to stand the
loss. You may read the whole story of the commercial disaster which the
attempt to introduce collective ownership brought upon France. The
experiment ended in a panic such as the nation had never known, and the
revolt of the workmen which followed was suppressed by the troops only
after 10,000 persons had been killed or wounded.
Don’t you think that I am right when I say that it will take something
more than the mere assertion of a Deville or an Annie Besant to
persuade a sane and sensible people that collective ownership is more
practical to-day than it was some sixty years ago?
The admissions that these Socialists have made seem conclusively frank;
yet Richardson, in “Industrial Problems” (p. 179), gives us a concrete
example that may throw an additional sidelight upon the situation. He
says:
“In a Socialist State, if a laborer in ten hours can produce five pairs
of shoes, he could not have as his reward for that labor five pairs
of shoes. For while he was making these shoes, educational work had
to be done, hospitals had to be operated, the mentally and physically
incapable had to be cared for--all socially necessary labor had to be
carried on; and the cost of the maintenance of these things is a part
of the cost of the social product.”
Richardson goes on to calculate how much the shoemaker “might get” for
his product; but he entirely overlooks the very grave possibility that
after all the items which Mrs. Besant and he have enumerated, and all
of Deville’s “etcetera” have been deducted, the worker “might get”
nothing at all.
In short, are we not justified in questioning the wisdom of this
scheme? Under the present system the wages of a worker represents a
first charge against the business, and profits, interests and rent can
be paid only out of what is left (if anything is left) after he has
secured his share.
The adoption of the Socialist system would change all this. The worker
might get a beggarly “subsistence wage,” to keep him alive and able to
work, but nothing else would be paid to him until all the expenses of
the State, including the cost of its numberless agents and officials,
had been deducted. Justly does Schaffle say (“The Quintessence of
Socialism,” p. 122): “The leading promise of social democracy is
practically and theoretically untenable; it is a delusive bait for the
extreme individualistic fanatic craving for equality among the masses.”
After seeing all this, John, do you think it possible that the
condition of the worker could be improved by the adoption of Socialist
methods? In view of the very dubious prospect of a possible “bonus,”
what do you think of a man who would go to the lengths that Spargo goes
in his attempt to befuddle the brain of those who are too ignorant,
or too careless, to investigate this question for themselves. Under
Socialism, Spargo says (“Socialism,” p. 236): “If Jones prefers _objets
d’art_, and Smith prefers fast horses or a steam yacht, each will be
free to follow his inclination so far as his resources will permit.”
Let us be thankful for this concession! We shall in this respect, at
least, be no worse off than we are to-day. At the present moment Jones
can buy his art objects, and Smith his fast horses or his steam yacht,
if the “resources” of Smith and Jones will permit. The question in
which we are interested, John, is not what you and Jones _will be
permitted_ to do, but what you _will be able_ to do, and I sadly fear
that Spargo, who must know the logical effects of Socialism, had a good
laugh at your expense when he penned those words.