Chapter XXVI. Social Organization For Consumption.
Individualism.—While the social organization is necessarily thought of as a group of individuals, whose individual wants and plans and growth and character must be the chief incentive for action, it is necessary to avoid the extreme of individualism. In escaping from the false analogy implied in considering society an organism, there is a tendency to make the individual not only of final importance but independent of association. Excess of competition is represented in the maxim, “Every man for himself.” In the effort to carry out this maxim and in opposition to restraints of society, whether by law or by custom, many are led to advocate an abolition of organization, leaving all welfare to be secured by appeal to the individual judgment and conscience of men. It is true that back of all law is the law of righteousness in individual souls.
Under the name of “autonomy” theorists propose to appeal to this conscience of individuals, making every soul a law to itself. Such theorists assume that every human being will be wise and virtuous, or take the consequences of his failure. They forget that all organizations for constraint are a part of the natural consequences of failure in self-control.
Under the name of “anarchy” groups of people all over the world have united to destroy what they consider arbitrary rules in government. Anarchists differ from autonomists in putting foremost the destruction of existing governments. Their ideals of right and wrong and their methods of individual action for individual welfare are left for the future to develop, after the rule of the present has become no-rule. Their present organization, as far as it is public, appears to be, in almost direct contradiction of their principles, an absolute despotism. The same idea has gained followers in some countries, particularly in Russia, under the name of “nihilism.”
While in some instances such movements may be but a natural reaction against tyranny, the view of human wants and human welfare which all these advocates present is far from being correct. The grand economic fact that groups are superior to individuals in actual efficiency is beyond dispute; and it is equally true, though not so often stated, that groups gain greatest satisfaction for a given consumption of wealth. It is only when great numbers share in satisfaction that the highest range of wants can be gratified. Moreover, even individual wants are largely social. Each finds his highest pleasure in the society which nature has provided. The chief reasons for accumulating wealth are in what men can do for each other. Any individualism which overlooks these principles is opposed to welfare, and so self-contradictory.
The famous French phrases, “laissez faire” and “laissez passer,” which represent the individualistic side of economic theory, are often extended beyond the intent [pg 330] of the phrase makers. They mean essentially, let do, let go, and have their proper application in an appeal to conservative society to so modify laws and customs that individual enterprise, ingenuity and thrift shall be stimulated to its best by freedom. Freedom from restrictions in right-doing, under the evident motive furnished by general welfare, is an ideal for society. In economic directions it has great importance. No thinker can fail to see the trend of civilization toward such freedom. So far in the history of the world the enlargement of individual responsibility, by freedom from constraint among the mature members of society, has been the chief mark of progress. Yet the constraint of welfare, and of the general judgment as to what is welfare, as well as the necessity for agreement as to ways and means of reaching it, are better recognized today than ever before. The extreme of individualism destroys the natural constraint of a common judgment.
Socialism.—The opposite extreme is the assumption that common wants are of supreme importance and common judgment absolutely efficient. Under the name of “communism” it stands in direct contrast with anarchy. Anarchists and communists may unite upon a platform of a single plank, opposition to existing institutions; but in all ideals and purposes and plans for future welfare they are absolutely opposed to each other. The natural community of interests so evident in society gives a fair basis for the general principles of communism. No doubt the welfare of all is the interest of each, and the world is growing to recognize it. Among a group of beings perfectly wise and virtuous there [pg 331] could be no clashing of either interests or judgment. The ideal of Louis Blanc, “From every man according to his powers, to every man according to his wants,” would represent the natural activity of such a group. But in application to humanity, as it is and is bound to be by its weakness and waywardness, it seems abstractly ideal. In fact it is only roughly applicable in ends to be served, and suggests almost nothing as to ways and means. Like the golden rule, it applies to the disposition and purpose of the actor, but leaves the acts to be decided by individual judgment.
The numerous phases of opinion in application of this principle cannot be presented even by name in this short chapter. They are worthy of study as indicating a growth of opinion and sentiment in recognition of the mutual dependence of all human beings. They are also worthy of study as indicating how arbitrary a zealot may become in enforcing his opinions upon others. All of them are grouped somewhat loosely under the name of “socialism,” but there are many gradations in the supremacy of the social ideal over the individual welfare. There are also many shades of opinion as to how the final result of social supremacy shall be reached. Many are expecting a revolution by force of arms to establish the ideals of the leaders. More are opportunists, snatching every opportunity in legislation, in decision of courts, and in executive power, to apply their methods.
Under the name of “collectivism” appeals are made to the multitude to combine their energies under leadership: first, to overcome present restraints; and then to [pg 332] secure combined action in all modes of production and consumption. “Nationalism” is more familiar to our thought in the United States, as embracing the aim of a somewhat noisy party to bring about the compulsory organization of all industries under the control of the nation, even to placing all property and all methods of consumption under an official despotism.
Few recognize the actual logic of their views as compelling complete subjection of every individual to others' judgment, and fewer still have any idea of the official machinery needed for such control. The great majority are satisfied in seeing evils which might be cured by greater social accord, expecting at once to vote into existence the necessary machinery. Most of these are misled into considering wealth and its uses to be the chief elements of welfare. They forget that wealth is only a means of accomplishing one's purposes toward his fellows and himself. The greed of power and position and praise are far stronger as evil motives than greed of wealth. If wealth were distributed by omniscient wisdom and power according to the maxim of Louis Blanc, the higher welfare would still be as far away as ever, unless the same omniscience should control all actions. Such control by outward force would banish the very idea of virtue, the highest of all welfare.
It is easy to see that every form of socialism, in practical methods, involves a leveling process inconsistent with human nature and its surroundings. Equality of environments is possible only by reducing all to the lowest condition. Equality of aspirations reduces all toward the most brutal of the race. Even equality of [pg 333] efficiency reduces all to the power of the least efficient. So the whole range of method, assuming equality of wealth as important to welfare, lowers the welfare of the whole by destroying the best abilities and the best capacities for enjoyment in order to prevent inequality.
And yet it has not been proved that equality in any of these particulars is desirable. It is equally beyond proof that actual equality is possible. The most absolute communism implies the greatest inequality in official power. Even the pleasing phrase, “Equality of opportunity,” will not bear analysis as applied to human nature and human welfare, under the very highest ideals of social unity. Indeed, the lesson of facts in all activity is that inter-dependence of unlike and unequal forces makes the true unity of organization, and the surest welfare of multitudes. That each individual should have the best opportunity possible for his own development is best for each and for all in a community; but that such opportunities shall be equal in any other sense no wisdom can contrive. Most socialistic theories presuppose almost immediate change of human nature under the new form of administration. But for this supposition there is little ground in the history of the race or of all nature. Growth there will be, and evolution of ideals; but the administration grows out of these, instead of being their cause.
Socialistic tendencies.—Socialistic theories gain adherence under the provocation of certain tendencies in society. First, they appear whenever by oppression or fraud of any kind a community is made up of one class possessing wealth directly opposed to another class without [pg 334] wealth, with no extended middle class, and therefore with no ready means of transition from one class to another. As long as the doors are open for real progress in power of accomplishment, all the way from poverty to wealth, society has a unity in its variety that is better than any communism promises. At present in our own country, with the great multitude of farmers' families furnishing not only the necessities of life, but the larger part of human energy that goes into every calling and every rank, socialism does not appeal to any large number. An earnest, thriving farmer's family will never believe advantage to come either to themselves or to the race by making them all practically mere wage-earners.
Second, a common cause of socialistic views is separation, under extreme division of labor and opposing organizations sustained by it, of the workers in very distinct fields of labor. The jealousies arising between these classes, or guilds, or between employers and employed, foster the revolutionary spirit which jumps at any promise of relief from unsatisfactory conditions.
In the third place, a political revolution, if it has destroyed landmarks of the past and any natural sentiments growing out of social relations, leaves a mass of people at sea with reference to the nature of rights. Under such circumstances socialism offers an apparent solution of difficulties unprovided for. Though any practical effort to apply these theories under such circumstances usually results in despotic assumption of authority by a few, the people are moved by the pleasant-sounding phrases. If, in the settling of social affairs after a revolution, an earnest effort is made to agree upon [pg 335] set phrases embodying principles of constitutional liberty, the chances are in favor of some sweeping statements, too general to control action, but over-emphasizing individual rights in comparison with individual duties. Action under these declarations usually conforms to the necessities of the case, accepting the immediate welfare of the society as a guide to more complete welfare.
All these conditions are abnormal, wholly unfavorable to a fair consideration of what will promote welfare. Even if socialistic methods might work fairly well when all were favorably disposed, there is great question whether they would work as well as present social methods, under equal good will. It must not be forgotten that every scheme of nationalization, for its own sake, implies the government of every individual by everybody else, thus hampering under petty regulations and by force of multitudes the growth of every individual. No scheme for national direction provides as natural tests for merit, ability, enterprise or necessity as present methods are known to do wherever fraud and tyranny are abolished.
Coöperative consumption.—In the natural order of social development there is room for much more general association in the consumption of wealth than we sometimes think. The world has made great progress in this direction during the last fifty years, through voluntary organizations for prudent expenditure. The only limit to such community of organization for special purposes is in the nature of the work and the relation of the workers. Coöperative stores, banks, building and loan [pg 336] associations, laundries and even kitchens are within the range of actual experiments. We have already seen how such coöperative interests may operate in simple investment of capital for production. The chief obstacles in them all are the lack of certain characteristics of prudence in a multitude. In general the best management does not accord with the judgment of the mass.
A few brief maxims may indicate the natural restrictions upon such methods. Coöperative consumption is successful: first, where those coöperating are fairly equal in wants and abilities, or closely related through kinship or friendship; second, where the range of coöperation includes common wants; third, where no one is given the advantage of credit; fourth, where mutual confidence selects and sustains a continuous management; fifth, where frequent and full reports can make the business plain to all concerned. It would be interesting to follow the growth of coöperative stores and banking associations from small beginnings to enormous enterprises, but the limits of this volume will not permit. This extension may be realized from the statement that the Rochedale coöperative societies of England now number nearly two thousand, with more than a million members and nearly seventy-five million dollars of capital.