But it is as a scheme of distribution that socialism has been most warmly urged. The inequalities and injustices of present methods are pointed out and a more just system demanded. Socialists themselves, however, are not agreed as to what constitutes justice. Needs and merits have both been urged as bases of distribution, but suffer from vagueness and difficulty in administration; most socialists today agree that equality of income would best meet the requirements of justice. They claim that talented persons have been endowed by nature with their abilities and should use them as a trust for society and not expect greater rewards than their less talented brothers. To this individualists answer that the practical question is, how to secure the greatest exercise of these gifts, and that is now done by appealing to the motive of self-interest. Some writers even go further and assert that the desire for inequality is the chief stimulus to invention and enterprise. A crucial point in every socialistic scheme is the determination of value under such a system; most socialists follow Marx and say that this should be determined by the “socially necessary labor time” required for the production of an article. Such a measure leaves out of account entirely the aspect of utility or demand, and would clearly be inadequate. Prices would be fixed by the State and would be calculated in labor time, which would probably
be represented by labor checks, which would constitute the media of exchange of the socialistic society.
Finally, in the definition given above, it was stated that private property would exist in the larger proportion of the social income after it was divided. There is no reason why this should not be true, for, though private capital would be abolished, the State would not interfere with the individual in the use of his income after it was earned. If one man preferred fine clothes and another pictures and books, it would be possible for the latter person to accumulate such articles of enjoyment or consumption. He could even have tools for private carpentering or a horse for riding, but under no circumstances would he be permitted to use these for production or as instruments of private gain. Socialism must stand or fall as a system of production and distribution; it is not necessary to criticise minor points. On these broad grounds it must be rejected, although it may fairly be admitted that socialists have often proved themselves keen and useful critics of existing institutions.
Many persons in this and other countries, who do not approve of socialism, nevertheless believe in the extension of state ownership or activity along particular lines. Thus Henry George, though in other respects an individualist, did not believe in the private ownership of land. Land is limited in quantity and yields, because of its monopoly character, an “unearned increment” or rent, quite apart from the return due the owner for improvements. He proposed that the Government should confiscate this unearned increment by levying a single tax on all land equal to it. He thought that this would provide revenue sufficient for all government needs without resorting to other forms of taxation; in this he was undoubtedly mistaken, but the main interest in the scheme for us is economic, and not financial. The reason for the scheme was that land, being a limited monopoly, would be increasingly in
demand as society progressed, and that consequently the landlords would absorb in their increased rents most of the enlarged production of the future. This assumes that rents always increase and never decrease, which is historically untrue. Nor does the growth and progress of society necessarily increase the demand for land; it may be directed to other things, while improvements in the arts of agriculture may actually decrease this demand. We must, however, admit that there are many instances of unearned increments, not only in the case of ground rents, but also of monopoly profits from various sources; these might very properly be secured to society by means of special and heavy taxes.
The municipalization of local public utilities has been advocated by many persons who are not socialists, except in so far as they desire an extension of governmental activity along these lines. They urge this because the utilities in question—gas, water, electricity, telephone, street railways, etc.—are by their very nature monopolies, and because under private control they are often inefficiently or dishonestly managed. A less drastic remedy for these abuses might of course be found in regulation. Unrestricted private control of municipal monopolies is advocated by few; the real issue is between public regulation and public management. And this issue will depend in the last analysis upon the question which can give the best results to society.
XIX. ECONOMIC PROGRESS.
At the conclusion of a study of this character we are inevitably led to summarize our conclusions and to try to answer the question as to what the lessons of the past have taught us. In what direction are the forces of economic life taking us? The conclusion of this text is that they are making for economic progress, and it will be worth while to justify as far as possible this belief. It
is, however, impossible to do this except in very general terms, for definite data for measuring this improvement do not exist, and economic progress itself is a somewhat vague conception. Even such comparatively simple facts as the rate of wages or the hours of labor can be stated only very generally. But both of these show a decided improvement in the condition of the working class. A careful investigation for Great Britain by Mr. A. L. Bowley[50] shows that if wages for the decade 1890-1900 be represented as 100 then the course of wages during the nineteenth century would have run somewhat as follows:
| Decade | Relative Wages |
| 1800-10 | 55-65 |
| 1810-20 | 65-70 |
| 1820-30 | 65 |
| 1830-40 | 60 |
| 1840-50 | 60 |
| 1850-60 | 65 |
| 1860-70 | 75 |
| 1870-80 | 95 |
| 1880-90 | 90 |
| 1890-1900 | 100 |