Part 13 (1/2)
Can security, liberty, and leisure be enjoyed only by a few at the expense of the many? Or can they be enjoyed equally by all?
I am glad in this connection to use the word ”enjoyed,” because this word a.s.sumes--as indeed the whole bourgeois philosophy a.s.sumes--that the few not only have security, liberty, and leisure, but that they ”enjoy” them; whereas I think it can be demonstrated that only the worthless few have leisure and that they do not enjoy it, and that neither the industrious nor the worthless have liberty or security at all. In other words, the few in grasping at these things at the expense of the many _enjoy_ none of them because of the hard fact of human solidarity, which will drive them at last to reconsider all these things. But this belongs to the subject of Solidarity and cannot therefore be elaborated in this chapter.
The essential thing to be kept in mind is that the only liberty worth having is one that will rescue us from _both_ kinds of restraints--natural and human; that it is quite useless to throw off human restraint and fall back into the condition of natural slavery which seems to be the policy of the anarchist; nor is it of any advantage to escape from natural slavery only to become a prey to human despotism or exploitation, according to the creed of the bourgeois. Socialism is the _juste milieu_ between Let-alone-ism on the one hand and Anarchism on the other. Liberty, to be worth having, must secure the greatest emanc.i.p.ation from _both_ restraints possible.
If we apply this notion of liberty to existing conditions, I think we shall come to the following conclusion:
From natural slavery created by men's needs it was impossible for the race to escape, except by the system which actually prevails--of making the unwealthy majority work for the wealthy few. This results in pauperism, prost.i.tution, and crime.
Slavery to Nature in a natural or savage state practically condemns savages to devote their whole time to procuring the necessaries of life, and to protecting these things, once procured, from the spoliation of their neighbors. A great stride in the progress of humanity was made when savages began each to respect the product, of the other's toil. And if this system could have prevailed, our late advance in science and our consequent, control of Nature would secure us two priceless advantages: one, security from spoilation; the other, an organization of labor that would reduce the hours every man would have to spend in procuring the necessaries and comforts of life to a very small fraction of the working day. The results in leisure that would accrue under a cooperative system will be explained later;[77]
but at this point it seems only necessary to indicate that if a man need devote only three or four hours during the working days of his life to satisfying his needs, he would have most of his waking hours to devote to social service, literature, art, music, or amus.e.m.e.nt, to an understanding of his political and economic problems, and to the political organization necessary to secure popular control over government for the first time in the history of the world. Every reform movement in New York has failed because men who wanted reform did not have the leisure to give to it; and the reform movement was therefore left to those who devoted their whole time to it in order to share the plunder on the day of victory. In other words, every reform movement if successful resulted in a political machine animated by selfish motives and therefore as bad as other political machines similarly animated. When every man has time to protect his business interests in the government; when these business interests are not hostile to the general welfare, but coincide with it; and when politics is the business of every man instead of being as now the business of a few professional politicians, then for the first time this world will see a veritable democracy.
Liberty, security, and leisure seem to me altogether the most important things that we can attain through a correct understanding of property. But owing to false notions of property created by the few who have acquired all the property at the expense of their fellow-citizens, there have arisen artificial conditions which have created what may be called artificial slavery; that is to say, personal dependence, political dependence, and economic dependence. Of these three the last is the most important because, in consequence of it, neither personal nor political independence is effectually enjoyed. That these three forms of dependence are unnecessary and are due to false notions of property which can be slowly eradicated, is the belief of the Socialist. It is also his belief that the very changes that will put an end to these three forms of dependence will also set up true notions of property instead of false, and thereby secure the priceless benefits of liberty and security on the one hand and of leisure on the other.
In other words, Socialism proposes not to abolish property, but to reinstate it; to relieve the rich from the insecurity and hatred to which they are now exposed; to rescue them from slavery to wealth and _ennui_; to confer upon them the immense consolation of knowing that what they enjoy is at the expense of no one; that it commits none to pauperism, prost.i.tution, or crime; that it is earned by social service, the only service worth doing; that the consideration they enjoy is due to their own merits and not to inherited or ill-gotten wealth; and to accomplish this by securing to all men the product of their toil; by restoring property to the consideration to which it is ent.i.tled; by furnis.h.i.+ng to every man the maximum of liberty, security, and leisure.
FOOTNOTES:
[74] Book III, Chapter II.
[75] Cicero, ”Pro Cluentio,” sec. 53.
[76] Book III, Chapter III.
[77] Book III, Chapter V. Economic Aspect.
CHAPTER V
THE RESULTS OF PROPERTY
Not only did Proudhon make a great mistake in condemning all property, but some Socialists still make the same mistake; for property even in its worst form has rendered humanity an indispensable service. It is the coc.o.o.n which the human chrysalis has instinctively wound around itself for protection while it is changing from a lower to a higher stage of development.
For example, property even in its worst form--that is, property that puts one man in a position to exploit the labor of another man--has encouraged the intelligent and industrious to acc.u.mulate wealth; and the acc.u.mulation of wealth makes economic development possible; for if a man produced no more than was necessary for the support of himself and his family, there would be no surplus out of which to support those engaged in the development of national resources--for example, the building of roads, the building of railroads, the building of factories, the exploitation of mines. Every progressing nation has got to have two totally different resources--the resources necessary to support that part of the population which is engaged in production and distribution--that is, in keeping the community alive; and the resources acc.u.mulated for supporting those who are developing the country; for example, the building of roads, etc. Obviously, therefore, it is indispensable that more be produced every year than is necessary for the support of those engaged in production and distribution; enough must be produced to support also those engaged in building roads, factories, etc.
Indeed little can be done in developing a country until a certain amount of commodities has been acc.u.mulated for this purpose. Now the acc.u.mulated resources applicable to development form what is called capital--which, in the hands of a few persons, permits of those few exploiting the rest; but in the hands of the producers themselves, will permit of a better development without the evil results of exploitation. It is alleged by opponents of Socialists that Socialism proposes to abolish wealth or capital. It is inconceivable that men supposed to be educated--such as Roosevelt, Taft, Bryan--should be so ignorant in a matter concerning which it is their peculiar duty to be informed. No cabinet minister in England, Germany, or France would be capable of such a mistake.[78] In Europe statesmen take the trouble to study Socialism and thus avoid making themselves ridiculous by such a blunder as believing that Socialism proposes to destroy or abolish wealth. Far from wis.h.i.+ng to abolish wealth, Socialism seeks to enhance it--to consecrate it--to put it beyond the reach of private avarice or public discontent. How they expect to do this will be explained later.
Meanwhile, it is important to keep clearly in mind the fact that it is not wealth that Socialists denounce, but the present distribution of wealth. This explains why well-informed Socialists are the first to recognize the beneficent role which the inst.i.tution of private property even in its worst form has played in stimulating acc.u.mulation.
Here again, whether property was inst.i.tuted for the deliberate purpose of stimulating acc.u.mulation or not, we see once more evolution favoring the survival of those nations who did acc.u.mulate at the expense of those who did not. In a conflict between two tribes, it was the tribe provided with the larger store of good weapons and food that must eventually prevail over the tribe less well provided with these.
And so evolution has pushed men in the direction of acc.u.mulating wealth because it destroyed those tribes which did not acc.u.mulate it and allowed the survival only of those who did.
This acc.u.mulation of wealth involved two qualities of predominating importance in human development, the exercise of forethought and self-restraint. If we compare man with the lower animals we find that there are no qualities in which he differs more from them than in these two. Man is capable of deliberate self-restraint. And the nations most capable of forethought and self-restraint have prevailed over nations which have been less capable of these. Here again, it may be incidentally pointed out that in no respect was the inst.i.tution of property more important to human development than in the recognition of the kind of property which a man originally had in his wife and children; and the more the domestic relations created by this property required exercise of self-restraint, the more the nations having these inst.i.tutions prevailed over those which did not have them.
The systematic survival first of patriarchal tribes over metronymic tribes,[79] and secondly, of monogamous tribes over polygamous tribes, is an unanswerable argument in favor of marriage, of which no well-informed Socialist fails to take account--Mr. Roosevelt to the contrary notwithstanding. The Socialist party is to be judged by its platform and not by extracts of isolated writers who have no more right to bind the whole Socialist party on the subject of marriage, than an isolated Republican or Democrat would have to bind the Republican or Democratic parties respectively. Of course, property of a man in his wife long ago ceased to exist in civilized countries; it has played its part in its time, but disappeared before a more humane, intelligent, and just understanding of the relations of man to his wife. In the same way, the right of property of one man in the labor of another will also yield to a more intelligent and wise understanding of the right of property.
The inst.i.tution of property performs one other function in society of inestimable importance. Early civilizations such as those of Greece and Rome, dominated by families who claimed descent from the G.o.ds, created an aristocracy of birth which, because it was exclusive, tended inevitably to become tyrannical. As, however, rights of property became more and more recognized, the aristocracy found itself confronted by a population that had acc.u.mulated wealth indispensable to the maintenance of the state. Men too who had acc.u.mulated this wealth had done so by the use of their brains, industry, forethought, and self-restraint. They const.i.tuted a group with which the aristocracy of birth had first to parley and to which it had eventually to succ.u.mb. It is true that this group of the aristocracy of wealth, which succeeded the aristocracy of birth, in one sense only replaced one set of rulers by another. But the transfer of power to the aristocracy of wealth was almost always effected through the support of the people, and was almost always attended by some concession of political control to the people. So that on the whole, the tendency has been for every transfer of political power from the aristocracy of birth to the aristocracy of wealth to include some element of popular representation until slowly through the gradual subst.i.tution of the bourgeoisie for the king, n.o.ble, and priest, the people has secured the priceless boon of the franchise which it has not yet learned to use.[80]
-- 1. THE GUILD