University of Santa Clara - Redwood Yearbook (Santa Clara, CA)

Page 30 text:

12 THE REDWOOD. lean task of apportioning work of all conceivable degrees of difficulty and disagreeableness among the workers. For freedom of choice would be an im- possibility, else everyone would flock to the most pleasant, enjoyable and agreeable. But how could this be done without engendering a vmiversal discon- tent that would he fatal to the plan at its very inception? Dissatisfaction would exist, for human nature is such that man cannot be thoroughly satis- fied with his surroundings. The dan- ger is that without proper means for its ' expression, this dissatisfaction would grow and spread beneath the surface of society until, having no other vent, it would at last break out in rev- olution. If on the other hand, change of employments were allowed, an im- mense waste of human power would re- sult by thus undoing the division of la- bor. The increase of annoyance and discomfort would far exceed all the losses and waste of the present com- petitive system. Again, supposing for the sake of ar- gument, the employments were all as- signed. How could one tell which per- sons were particularly suited for such and such a profession or trade? In the beginnings of Socialism this difficulty would not obtain for we know by ex- perience what men are particularly adapted for a given line of work. But what of the rising generation? Who knows the talents of this particular man? Who can say to him, you serve as a blacksmith apprentice, or you be- come a statesman? How are we to test his talents? And, who again, would be this grand dictator, who would say you do this and you do that? The simple outcome of the whole affair would be that our Edisons would be sweeping chimneys and our Shakes- peares cleaning streets. 4. Briefly, our fourth contention is this: either all must receive the same wage or else there must be a discrim- ination. In the first case there is a complete discouragement of both intel- ligence and skill for will not the farm- er, the laborer, the physician all receive the same compensation for their labor time? And in the second case who is to be trusted in arranging an elaborate system or sliding scale of wages in every imaginable industry in the world. There will not even be a trades union under the Socialist state with which a comparison could be made. Again, how can any one say that curing the measles in a certain instance on the part of a doctor is a result of the same labor time which would produce two waterbacks for your kitchen stove on the part of the plumber? We should simply be forced to entrust our good fortune to the arbitrary decision of gov- ernment officials, who, perhaps, might be the very men (and it is highly prob- able) who are least capable of pro- nouncing such a judgment. 5. If we turn our attention to his- torical man we will find that he is one who appears an idle, careless and self- indulgent personage save where he has

Page 29 text:

THE REDWOOD. 11 In the second alternative or local au- tonomy where distribution would be from stations operating over a small territory, such a compilation of statis- tics might possibly be accomplished, but in this event, another and even more serious objection arises. Through the happenings of time and chance, ability and management, various in- equalities in productive wealth would arise in the divers municipalities or districts. Santa Clara, for example, would be making 20 per cent more than San Francisco and Socialists are con- fronted once more with the inequality they seek to abolish. Nor could this be remedied by allowing the com- rades to migrate to any community they saw fit ; for to be successful the Collectivist plan necessitates a rigid fixity in the number of workers and consumers. For to provide employ- ment to an ever fluctuating population would be an impossibility. Hence eith- er one could move about freely when and where he chose or he could not. Under the former hypothesis the So- cialist state could not operate. Under the latter the individual would be re- duced to something like slavery. 2. The second difficulty of the Col- lectivist state which flows as a neces- sary consequence from the nature of the plan, is that of supplying different wants. Under the present system of distribution we have numberless trad- ers large and small catering to the in- dividual tastes of their consumers un- der the incentive of greater profit. How different, however, under the commun- istic order would be the state of affairs. Each person would present his or her labor ticket or money if it is used, and obtain a community chair, a commun- ity hair brush or a community overcoat. Such a system is destructive of person- al liberty and grown men and women would be reduced to boarding school children and dealt with as soldiers in a presidio. Some Socialists, however, claim that one will be able to obtain whatever he chooses, providing he has worked the necessary labor time to pay for it. But this answer brings us back to the clerical difficulty wherein each individual want must be determined every week. For we must not forget that there will not be the countless traders and manufacturers to ascertain the desires of the people, but all pro- duction will be operated by the Collect- ivist state, managed by state officials who will have no personal interest in their work and who will only be too glad to finish their day ' s work and have it over with. If, on the other hand, the state produces without determin- ing exactly the consumptive capacity of the people they fall into the error of haphazard production whereby vast quantities of goods would lie idle and unconsumed in the state or communal storehouse and be a drain upon those whose tastes were not so finicky. 3. The third objection to the Social- istic state is in assigning employments. Who is to do what? Here the com- monwealth would have the Hercu-

Page 31 text:

THE EEDWOOD. 13 been carefully trained and given an adequate motive for action. We charge that Socialism removes from man this mainspring of action. What motive to activity can take the place of the desire for individual and family advancement through the accumulation of private property? Take away the stimulus of fear for wife and children — to avert from them suffering and poverty, take away the incentive of hope for their fu- ture education, ease and enjoyment, and what adequate stimulus has man for the cultivation of his faculties and the concentration of his mind and en- ergy upon his work? Socialism is cal- culated to produce wastful and careless herds of human beings, with no private ambitions, no noble aims nor ardor in the pursuit of them. Thus at first blush we can see that Socialism as a practical working sys- tem would fail merely from the five difficulties we have considered and that the Socialistic cure therefore, is worse than the present disease. We have seen furthermore that Socialist claims for the injustice of the present system of production and distribution are falla- cious and therefore the whole chimera is swept from its foundation of clay. There is, however, one more assump- tion to which we alluded ' in the begin- ning, upon which the Socialistic claims for the adoption of their sys- tem are also based, namely, that So- cialism is the ONLY remedy for the frightful human calamities which re- sult from the present system of produc- tion. They say there is an immense amount of poverty and misery, vice and degradation caused by the cruel and extortionate methods of greedy capitalists. These are but the local out- come of the present capitalist system and until we have done away with it, relegated it to the ash heap as it were, these terrible outrages will continue and human beings will be ground un- der the heavy mill wheels of capital un- til at last revolution shall break out and throw the whole social order into chaos. Therefore, they conclude, al- though Socialism is attended with dif- ficulties we needs must accept it, for it is the only effective method of lift- ing from the pool of misery the count- less thousands of exploited workers. Here again the Socialist argues wrongly. Firstly, we are ready to ad- mit that there is, unfortunately, a great amount of poverty and misery, and hence vice and crime which is the re- sult of the forced condition of the work- er. We need but instance the horror of the sweat shops to recall to the read- er the awful condition of many of our workers in the great cities. Secondly, we may even say that this condition is the outcome of the capitalist system of production. Lastly, we emphatically deny that Socialism is the ONLY means by which we may better or even eradicate these conditions. It is not the province nor scope of this writing to point out any remedy for existing evils, but I may briefly in- dicate the fact that there are many