Hertzka also takes the requirements of luxury of the better situated classes into consideration and finds that the manufacture of such articles, to supply the demands of 22 million people, would require 315,000 more workers. According to Hertzka, then, about 1 million workers, 20 per cent. of the able-bodied male population of Austria, excluding those under 16 and over 50, would be needed to supply the entire needs of the population in sixty days. If we again take the entire able-bodied male population into consideration, we find that they would have to perform only about 2½ hours of work daily.[215]
This calculation will not surprise anyone who is well acquainted with existing conditions. If we furthermore assume that, with such a short work-day, only the sick and the invalids must be excluded, while men over 50 might still work, and youths under 16 might be active to some extent, and that the women might also serve in industry, except those who are engaged in child-rearing, the preparation of food, etc., we find that the hours of work might be shortened still more, or that the demands might be greatly increased. Nor will any one deny that tremendous, incalculable progress may still be made in perfecting the process of production, a factor that will create further advantages. On the other hand, many requirements will be satisfied that only a small minority can satisfy to-day, and, with the higher development of civilization, new requirements will arise that will also have to be satisfied. It must be iterated and reiterated: The new society will not elect to lead a proletarian existence. It will demand the existence of a highly civilized people for all its members from the first to the last. But it shall not only satisfy all the material requirements, it shall also grant to all ample opportunity and time for the study of science and art, and for recreation.
[212] “The force of rivalry that leads to supreme efforts to win the praise and admiration of others, has been shown by experience to be a useful one wherever persons compete with one another, even in regard to frivolous matters and such matters from which the public derives no benefit. But a rivalry as to who can best serve the common welfare, is a sort of competition that Socialists do not repudiate.”—John Stuart Mill, “Political Economy.” Every society, every organization of persons having the same aims and a common cause, also furnishes many examples of a nobler endeavor that leads to no material success but to a purely ideal one. The persons vieing with each other are indeed impelled by the ambition of serving the common cause and of winning recognition. But this sort of ambition is a virtue since it serves the common good and at the same time gives satisfaction to the individual. Ambition is harmful only when it is satisfied at the expense of others or to the detriment of society.
[213] v. Thuenen—“The Isolated State,” says: “The conflicting interests are the reason why proletarians and possessors are hostile to one another and will remain unreconciled as long as the discord in their interests has not been removed. Not only by the wealth of the employer, but also by invention in manufactory, by the building of roads and railways, and by the opening of new markets, the national income may be greatly increased. But in our present social order the workingman derives no benefit from this increase. His status remains the same, and the entire increase in income falls to the share of the employers, capitalists and landlords.” This last sentence is an almost verbal anticipation of a declaration by Gladstone in the English parliament, in 1884. He said: “This intoxicating growth of wealth and power (experienced by England during the last twenty years) has been limited exclusively to the possessing classes;” and v. Thuenen says: “in the separation of the worker from his product the evil lies.”—Morelly says in his “Principles of Legislation”: “Property divides us into two classes, the rich and the poor. The former love their property and do not care to defend the state. The latter can not love their fatherland for it gives them nothing but misery. But under Communism every one loves his fatherland for by it everyone obtains life and happiness.”
[214] In weighing the advantages and disadvantages of Communism, John Stuart Mill says in his “Political Economy”: “No field can be more favorable to this conception (that public interest and private interest are identical) than a communistic association. All the ambition as well as the physical and mental activity, that is at present directed upon the pursuit of sporadic and selfish interests, would demand a different sphere of activity, and would find it in the service of the common good of society.”
[215] In his “False Doctrines,” Eugen Richter ridicules the enormous shortening of the hours of work predicted by us that would result if all were obliged to work and if the process of production were organized in accordance with the highest technical development. He tries to belittle the productivity of large manufacture and to enlarge the importance of small manufacture, in order to assert that it would not be possible to produce the required amount. To make Socialism seem impossible the upholders of the present “order” must try to discredit the advantages of their own social system.
[3.—Organization of Labor.]
In a number of other very essential points the socialistic co-operative system will differ from the bourgeois individualistic system. The cheap and poor goods that make up a large portion of bourgeois production, and necessarily must make up a large portion of it, because a majority of the customers can afford to purchase only cheap goods that wear out quickly, will be eliminated. Only the best will be produced that will last long and will not have to be renewed as often. The fads and follies of fashion that only favor extravagance and bad taste will disappear. Doubtless our wearing apparel will be better suited to its purpose and more tasty than to-day—for the fashions of the last century, especially those of the men, have been conspicuous by their bad taste—but new fashions will no longer be introduced every few months. The present follies of fashion are caused, on the one hand, by the competition of women among themselves, and on the other by conceit and ostentation and the desire to display one’s wealth. Moreover, a great many persons depend upon these follies of fashion to-day, and it is to their interest to encourage and stimulate them. Together with the follies of fashion in dress, the madness of fashion in the style of dwellings will disappear. Here eccentricity is rampant to-day. Styles that have required centuries to become evolved among various nations—we are no longer satisfied with European styles, but turn to those of the Japanese, Indians, Chinese, etc.—are used up in a few years and set aside. Persons engaged in mechanical arts hardly know what to do with all the designs and models. They have barely adapted themselves to one style, trusting to recover their expenses, when a new style appears that necessitates further sacrifices of time and money and of physical and mental forces. In this mad rushing from one fashion to another and from one style to another the nervousness of our age is vividly reflected. No one would claim that there is any sense or reason in this rush and haste, or that it might be regarded as a healthful state of society.
Socialism will give greater stability to the habits of life. It will make rest and enjoyment possible and will liberate us from the present haste and excitement. Nervousness, the scourge of our age, will disappear.