Delphi Complete Works of Stephen Leacock, page 453
The effect of this teaching throughout the world, but especially in Great Britain, was momentous. It led to the repeal (1813-14) of the long-standing regulation of labor under the Elizabethan statute. It occasioned the abrogation of the laws against free combination of workingmen (1824) and of the laws of settlement restricting the movement of laborers, the repeal of the navigation code (1849) which since the reign of Charles II had sought to limit the trade with British colonies to the ships of the mother country, and the abolition of the trade monopoly of the East India Company. It found its greatest triumph in the almost total repeal of the protective duties, the abolition of the corn laws (1846), and the establishment in the United Kingdom of the system of free trade. In America, though the absence of positive interference in the past prevented the necessity of similar statutes of repeal, the same ideas exercised an enormous influence. The writings of earlier American economists reflect with what General Walker has called a “Chinese fidelity” the ideas of the English school; and the low-tariff movement before the war was based on the doctrine of free trade. In a succeeding chapter we shall have occasion to refer to the later criticism of natural liberty.
4. Based on a Biological Analogy: the Survival of the Fittest. The evolutionary basis of the individualistic theory of governmental functions has not enjoyed the same prominence as the economic doctrine. We see it especially in the political philosophy of Herbert Spencer. As we have already noticed in connection with the organic theory of society, Spencer endeavors to apply the biological theory of evolution to the interpretation of social and industrial progress. The government is regarded as one of the “organs” of society. It should be intrusted only with that function for which it is specially adapted; and with the advance of social complexity it must lose in scope what it gains in intensity. “A function to each organ, and each organ to its own function,” says Spencer, “is the law of all organization. . . . The lungs cannot digest, the heart cannot respire, the stomach cannot propel blood. . . . Must we not expect that with government also, special adaptation to one end implies nonadaptation to other ends?” Spencer, in his earlier writings at any rate, was willing to follow his theory to its logical outcome, and to erect the dogma of “the survival of the fittest” into a moral law. To interfere with its operation was to disturb the “natural” order of progress. Should the state aid the poor, the sick, and the aged, it thereby contributes to the survival of forms which have no claim to survive, and whose existence is a detriment to life in general. “It seems hard,” he says, “that a laborer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life or death. Nevertheless when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of beneficence.” The theory thus advanced is interesting as illustrating the extreme form which individualism was apt to assume during the period of its dominance, but hardly needs a detailed refutation. Such an argument would apply equally well to the suppression of private charity, private aid to the sick, and private maintenance of the poor as well as to government relief. If the sole test of fitness to survive is found in the fact of survival, then the prosperous burglar becomes an object of commendation, and the starving artisan a target of contempt. If it is assumed that widows will die unless the government helps them, and that usurers will grow rich unless the government stops them, this seems a very poor reason for saying that widows ought to die and that usurers ought to grow rich. Even taking the evolutionary argument on its own ground, it can be urged with justice that as soon as the government does “interfere,” then its interference becomes one of the facts of the situation, one of the operative forces to be taken into account. Indeed the attempt to thus apply the biological doctrine of evolution to the theory of the functions of government involves a distortion of the truly scientific point of view.
5. Conflicting Forces. Even in the first half of the nineteenth century, when the individualistic view of government was dominant in both theory and practice, its doctrines were not altogether unopposed. The wonderful progress made in productive industry by the factory system operating under a régime of natural liberty seemed the strongest possible argument in its favor. As against this the appalling distress of the working classes during the same period plainly called for a more active policy on the part of the state than mere non-intervention. The factory system under the play of free contract seemed inevitably to lead to oppressive hours of labor, unwholesome and brutalizing conditions of work, and the employment of children of immature age as a substitute for adult labor. The degradation and insufficient remuneration of the workers as a consequence of their enjoyment of “natural liberty” called forth a strong current of opinion in opposition to the policy of non-interference. Thomas Carlyle in his “Past and Present” (1843) and “Latter Day Pamphlets” (1856) denounced the “dismal science” of the economists and ridiculed the doctrine of laissez faire. The practical effect of this humanitarian movement is seen in the legislative regulation of factory labor in Great Britain by acts of Parliament of 1833, 1844, 1847, 1850, and later statutes. These measures which limit the hours of employment for women and children are flatly at variance with the individualistic principle. They have however been subsequently imitated in the legislation of the great industrial states, including most of the manufacturing states of the American Union. The further disintegration of the principle of non-interference will be traced in the third chapter. From what has been said, however, it may safely be concluded that pure individualism in the conduct of government is impossible. Its adoption, in complete form, runs counter to the most instinctive impulses of humanity and would neglect governmental duties of the most evident character. As a matter of political justice it rests on a mechanical attempt to completely divorce individual and social rights. On an economic basis it overlooks the plain advantages of coöperation and regulated effort. As a scientific law it will not stand examination.
READINGS SUGGESTED
Mill, J. S., Principles of Political Economy, bk. v, chap. xi.
Ritchie, D. G., Studies in Political and Social Ethics (1902), chap. iii.
M’Kechnie, W. S., The State and the Individual (1896), part ii, chaps. xiv, xv, xvi, xvii.
FURTHER AUTHORITIES
Montague, F. C., Limits of Individual Liberty (1885).
Donisthorpe, W., Individualism (1894).
Kelly, E., Government, or Human Evolution (1901).
Michel, H., L’Idée de l’Etat (1895).
Sidgwick, H., Elements of Politics (2d edition, 1897).
Von Humboldt, W., Sphere and Duties of Government (1791).
Pollock, Sir F., History of the Science of Politics (1900).
Godwin, W., Political Justice (1798).
Bluntschli, J. K., Geschichte der Neueren Staatswissenschaft. (3d edition, 1881).
Blanqui, J. A., History of Political Economy in Europe (American translation, 1880).
Cunningham, W., Growth of English Industry and Commerce (1903), vols, ii and iii.
Spencer, H., The Man versus the State (1884).
CHAPTER II. SOCIALISM
1. THE SOCIALISTIC Theory: its Destructive Criticism. — 2. The Constructive Programme of Socialism. — 3. The German Social Democrats. — 4. Socialism in England and America.
1. The Socialistic Theory: its Destructive Criticism. Entirely opposed to the individualistic conception of government are the doctrines known as socialism, collectivism, communism, and which, subject to later distinction, may be spoken of together as the socialistic theory of the state. No socialistic state has actually existed on any except a small and experimental scale. Socialism is therefore mainly an ideal rather than an actuality. But the doctrines it embodies have appealed so strongly to so many minds, have exercised such an important influence on actual legislation and practical politics, and contain in spite of their fallacious nature so much that is of use and inspiration, as to merit a special treatment.
Socialistic theories present both a destructive and a constructive aspect. They offer in the first place a criticism of the existing industrial system (whose basis is individualistic), with a view to show its inherent unsoundness and its inevitable collapse. In the second place they propose to substitute for the present state a coöperative commonwealth to be founded on associated effort and joint control. The critical part of the socialistic doctrine is intended to show that the individualistic system of industry is wasteful and ineffective from an economic point of view, and inequitable in that the remuneration which falls to the different classes of workers is not according to their relative deserts. The more celebrated writers of the school, as for instance the great German socialist Karl Marx in his “Capital,” which has been called the gospel of socialism, criticise the existing state from a point of view elaborately historical. Marx alleges that the system of individual private property on which it rests is the outcome of original aggression of the strong against the weak, representing an appropriation of the means of existence by the stronger class, and their consequent exploitation of the mass of workmen, who remain in a state of dependence spoken of as wage slavery. The progressive improvement of the means of production renders the workmen more and more dependent on those who employ them. The appropriation of the land by private owners (a process practically complete in older countries) renders it impossible for any individual to apply his labor directly to the natural resources of the earth. The increasing use of machinery, although vastly more efficient than the hand labor which it has replaced, makes all productive operations more and more dependent on the possession of capital, on the ability to purchase machines, premises, etc., and to forego the prospect of immediate reward for the sake of future profit. In such a condition of things the isolated laborer has nothing whereon to subsist except his labor power, which he must sell as best he can to the highest bidder. In the nature of things he cannot receive less for it than what will enable him to barely exist, but anything over and above this will depend on the bargain he is able to make with his employer. Now this bargain, although nominally effected under the rule of free contract, is in reality a forced one. The workman must sell his labor or die of starvation. But since the increase of population, as Malthus and others have shown, is continuous until some point where it is actually checked by lack of means of subsistence, the labor market will always be so crowded with laborers as to bring down the level of wages to that which practically amounts to the necessaries of life. Should wages rise above this, a responsive upward movement of population must bring them down again. Such is the famous “Iron Law of Wages” formulated by Lassalle on the basis of the Ricardian economics. The other side of the industrial bargain is represented by what the employer receives from the laborer. This consists each day of a certain amount of labor power, which results in the fabrication of a certain number of useful commodities produced by the application of the day’s labor. From the nature of the bargain it does not follow that the commodities thus produced by the workman’s labor need be exactly equivalent to the commodities given to him through the medium of his wages by the employer. Indeed, the socialistic writers assure us the two are by no means equal. The workman produces in the day more than he consumes (for otherwise the employer would have no motive in undertaking production), and the surplus thus created falls to the lot of his fortunate employer. The laborer who sells his labor under compulsion is compelled to submit to this fraudulent system. Such is the doctrine of surplus value, which is particularly associated with the name of Karl Marx, and which is the foundation of the critical theory of socialism. The point in which it lies open to attack is that it attributes to labor the whole of the productive result, and does not allot a share to the machine which was used in coöperation and which is the property of the capitalist.
It is impossible here to enter into the economic discussion to which this question gives occasion. It is only intended to show on what grounds the socialistic contention accuses the present system of being essentially inequitable. Marx and the writers who have followed his lead are not content with alleging the present unfairness of the method of free contract and free competition. They claim that with the continued application of machinery and improvement of production, the continued appropriation of natural resources and constant growth of population, the inequity of the system will be emphasized, the gulf between the capitalists and the laborers, the rich and the poor will be further and further increased. Sooner or later, they maintain, the forces thus at work will precipitate a vast social catastrophe which can only be avoided by altering the industrial basis of our social system, and substituting associated effort for the economic anarchy of free competition. Their theory thus assumes the aspect of a social prophecy.
On more valid grounds the socialists draw attention to the wastefulness of the individualistic method of production and distribution. A vast amount of work is performed under it that has no social utility, a great deal of work is duplicated and even done several times over with no general advantage. The labor wasted in competitive advertising, and efforts of a similar character intended merely to divert business from one person to another, is the most conspicuous instance of economic loss of the first class. Instances of work that is needlessly multiplied are seen in the case of competing railroads running trains over parallel lines, and in retail stores existing in considerable number where one general distributing establishment could do the work. Perhaps the simplest and best illustration of the point in question is seen in the contrast between the delivery of letters at consecutive houses and in neighboring streets by a postman (an official under collective management) and the waste of time and labor involved by the spasmodic delivery of milk and groceries at various houses throughout an extensive district by the employees under individual management. It is in the economic saving thus effected that the amalgamation of industry by large corporations proves economically superior to production and distribution by small concerns. The large industrial companies and departmental stores of the present are standing proof of the fact. These the socialists regard as indicating the necessary passing of the older system of individualism, the large corporations representing a transition stage towards the general industrial management by the state.
2. The Constructive Programme of Socialism. From what has been said it will be easily seen that the critical or destructive side of socialistic theory contains a great deal that is true and extremely useful in indicating the proper direction of measures of social reform. The other side of socialism, its constructive programme for a coöperative commonwealth, is much weaker and cannot be worked out in detail without meeting with hostile criticism from socialists themselves. In general terms the programme of socialism is to substitute government management for private management, to put all productive industry under state administration, thus making the state the sole employer, and putting all the workers in the employ of the state. On this system the functions of government would extend to the whole domain of economic operations; it would manage all the railroads, the factories, the mines, and the farms. In place of competing retail stores, government distributing houses would be established for delivering to each citizen his share of the national production. Individuals would still have a property right to the things they actually intended to use, — houses, food, clothes, etc., — but all the means of production would be nationalized.
The inherent impracticability of such a system becomes evident when one turns from the general scheme of production to the question of distribution, — the method according to which the wages of the workers under the socialist state are to be managed. On this point there is a great variety of opinion. The most extreme view is found in those writers who recommend that everything produced should be common property, all persons taking from the general stock according to their needs. La mise au tas, la prise au tas, ran the formula adopted by Proudhon, the French anarchistic writer. Such a system would of course leave no such thing as individual wages, the remuneration of each laborer being according to his needs, not according to his efficiency. Somewhat similar to this is the suggestion for a general equality of wages, all persons being compelled to work for an equal number of hours (or a number of hours equalized according to the relative attractiveness or repulsiveness of the trade) and all receiving the same remuneration. This, it will be remembered, is the solution of the wages problem offered by Edward Bellamy in his “Looking Backward,” a presentation of the socialist state under the form of a romance, which attracted at the time of its publication (1888) a phenomenal attention. To all except the most sanguine visionaries any socialistic scheme involving equality of wages is totally impracticable. It is evident that under such an arrangement the individual stimulus to work would be gone and the efficiency of production hopelessly impaired by idleness. Bellamy and others attempt to argue that under the improved conditions brought by socialism, the elevation of the general moral tone would severely discountenance any such shirking of work, and that with the shortened hours of labor possible under coöperative work there would be no aversion to labor on the part of the individual. Such an argument is altogether of an idealistic character, and contains the most monstrous assumptions of a sudden and mechanical renovation of human nature, so sweeping as to beg the whole question of social reform. The argument is also in contradiction to the method (adopted by Bellamy) of lengthening or shortening the hours of labor in any trade in order to attract or repel workers according to the needs of any particular moment. This plan itself rests on the assumption of an aversion to work.
