Loyola College - Review Yearbook (Montreal, Quebec Canada)

Page 32 text:

24 LOYOLA COLLEGE REVIEW Socialism INCE the advent of industrialism in the 18th century and the evo- lution of the capitalistic order which holds sway to-day, social reformers have busied themselves in the proposal of measure upon measure for the correction of defects in the prevalent status of society. It is not the intention of this essay nor of its author to defend modern society and its ramifications in every detail. Nor will we seek to refute in every other doctrine, false bases and the error of their funda- mental concepts. As may be easily realized today, the most persistent and widespread of all social remedies proposed for the ills of the capitalistic system 1s that of communism. And it is the purpose of this essay to treat of communism's most eminent offspring, moderate socialism. Time would not per- mit the exposition and refutation of all the tenets of socialism. But let us take the most fundamental of all these tenets, the one which once undermined, will cause the huge superstructure of socialism to fall with it, namely, the theory evolved by Karl Marx, the theory of surplus value. In Russia since early 1916, at the time of the Red Revolution, the reins of the government have been held by that faction known generaly as the communists or adherents of communism. This is in gen- eral correct, but communism is merely a genus enfolding many and various species of communism. Communism is the theory that all goods as far as capital or means of production is concerned, should be the common property of the community. There are two types of communism, positive and negative communism. The theory once upheld by negative com- munists, the most notable being Moses Hess, has few, if any supporters in recent times. Men have come to realize that an order where, as Cathrein states, one man may reap the harvest which another has sown by weeks of labour, is wildly un- practical. For negative communism up- holds the theory that denies to all men the right to own property, makes all goods common to all, and makes everyone the owner of everything. It is positive communism, however, that embraces the more reasonable and widely followed theories of the day. Positive communism denies the natural right of man to own private property. But it goes „even farther and provides that all or part of all material goods should be put into the hands of communities or of a state, which acts as the administrator, distribu- tor and owner of these goods. Because positive communism does not specify what goods are not to be exclu- sively possessed, there have arisen two factions. Extreme positive communists demand the control of all goods without exception under one administration. Mod- erate positive communists, on the other hand aim only at the abolition of private property as far as capital and productive goods are concerned. This moderate form has by far the greatest number of adherents in our own day. But the question whether these com- mon goods are to be controlled by com- munities or independent groups of la- bourers, or by a body representative of society in general, without reference to class and known as the state, has given rise to two bitterly opposed factions, anarchists and socialistic communists or socialists. Anarchism, as sponsored by Bakunin, would abolish all private property by force and terrorization, even to the extent, as we have seen in the past, of seeking to gain its ends by bloodshed and the use of explosives. The distribution and admin- istration of all property would be in the hands of communities of working men, united by federation, each individual receiving his own products. With man given full liberty, anarchists hold that by a theory of evolution, he will rise to. the highest stages of perfection. The distinction between anarchism and socialism is shown by the very definition of

Page 31 text:

LOYOLA COLLEGE REVIEW 23 EE fest HOMMAGE Salut bien, compagnons d'une langue étrangére! Salut, jeune collège aussi frais qu'un bos- . quet! La gaîté dans les yeux, et d'áme légère, Je mets mon humble fleur parmi votre bouquet. La vaine réverie et les langueurs de soie Ne troublent point vos fronts. Mais votre coeur ouvert A mis son espérance et ses pleurs et sa joie Dans les plis frémissants de son vieux drapeau vert! Eh bien! qu'il soit permis, race antique et valide, Pour l'idéal commun, de joindre nos succes! Et qu' enfin les liens d'une amitié solide Unissent votre coeur aux Canadiens-fran- cais! Puissions-nous, pour toujours unis comme des frères, Cote á cote marcher sur le méme chemin, L’ame 4 jamais fermeé aux troubles de naguére, Et réver d’avenir en nous serrant la main! | | | | Robert Choquette, ' 26.

Page 33 text:

LOYOLA COLLEGE REVIEW 25 PEE — er socialism, given by Cathrein with par- ticular reference to the so-called social democracy of Marx, which is defined as that system of political economy which advocated the inalienable ownership on the part of the state of all capital or materials of labour, as also the public administration of all economic goods and the distribution of all produce by the democratic state. In exposing and refuting the tenets of socialism as conceived by Karl Marx, we now come to the purpose of this essay. As to the means by which that capital and those means of production are to be taken over by the socialistic state from the haads of contemporary capitalists, social- ists fortunately eschew the bloody means advocated by Proudhon, Strimer and Bakunin. They have selected the pen in preference to the sword as the most potent means of mass-education and rely on insidious writings and political impetus to gain their ends. “No man” says the socialist, “has a natural right to the possession of exclusive private property. He may possess certain objects exclusively, but only as a gift from the true owner, the state. Therefore let us take all capital from the hands of capital- istic classes and place it in the hands of the socialistic state. ” Such an acquisition of the personal property of men might naturally be called an injustice. However socialists have a means of justifying this acquisition. For they say with Marx “by theory of surplus value it is clearly shown that man cannot own anything that he has not actually produced by personal labour, the sole source of value in an object.” Let us state here the doctrine of Adam Smith, Ricards and especially of Karl Marx, which declares labour to be the sole source of value, and the tenet of sur- plus value by which men are to be denied the natural rights of private property. Every object has a value of two kinds; the capability an object has to satisfy a human want, such as our desire for a pair of shoes or an automobile is value in use or usual value; the exchangeability one object has for other objects is its value in exchange. Value in use depends on the physical and chemical properties of that object. Value in exchange however depends en- tirely on the amount of labour put into its production. For instance a shirt produced in ten days has the same exchange as a pair of shoes produced in ten days. But if I am in no need of shoes but an in great need of a shirt, the use value of the shoes may be $2 and that of the shirt $10. Marx now comes forward and says that the sole measure of value in an object is exchange value or labour. Because, he says, the standard of value must be com- mon to all goods, and labour alone is common to all kinds of goods. And with this assumption he goes on to show in his theory of how the present day capitalist amasses capital by the exploitation. of labour. In the human labourer, he says, there is a certain amount of human exertion which, like any other commodity, the capitalist hires for a certain wage. Now for this commodity of human labour there is also an exchange value and value in use. The value in exchange of that labourer's exertions is measured by the total price of all things necessary for that exertion to be maintained in that labourer, or in other words the price of the labourer's sustenance such as victuals, lodging and clothing. The value in use of this human exertion, however, is its power to create other value, such as skill. This value in use increases the exchange value of the objects on which the exertion is expended. Let us say in a specific instance, a certain capitalistic employer pays a labourer the sum of $3.00, which is the amount required for sustenance or, in other words, the ex- change value of his exertion. In return the labourer, because of intelligence and skill, produces an object worth %6.оо. Тһе exertion which produces this object is the value in use. Consequently, as Marx sees it, the labourer receives $3.00 representing his exchange value of exertion, while the