Section LXXXII.
The Organization Of Labor.
Most theoretical adherents of the doctrine of a community of goods, feeling[491] more or less the weight of the above objections, have supplemented it with the idea of an organization of labor[492] or the centralized superintendence of all production and consumption, either by the government already existing, or by one to be created anew. Such a government would be, of course, a despotism such as the world has scarcely yet seen, a Cæsaro-Papacy, usurping both the place and power of Father of the universal Family.[493] But the evils mentioned above would be entailed none the less. Every incentive which now [pg 252] moves man to industry or frugality would disappear, and nothing remain but universal philanthrophy; or, if you will, but patriotism, virtues which are not wanting even now. Even guardianship of the government newly created would be carried on in a very loose manner; for it would be exercised without any feeling of personal interest, even in the most favorable case supposable. It is well known and easily understood, that state industries are never engaged in, in the long run, with the same zeal, nor crowned with the same success, as competing private industries. It is well known, too, how intimate the connection is between the political freedom of a people and their economic production; that, for instance, England's greater wealth, as compared with that of Turkey, depends, most largely, on the freedom that obtains in the former country and the servitude that prevails in the latter.[494] And we may inquire just here, what the result would be, if the despotism of government should go ten times farther that it has ever gone in Turkey, when, moreover, the despot who led the state, was not an individual with his few officials, but the whole crowd, with its million eyes and million hands. It would, practically, be to give every producer an escort of a policeman and a revenue agent, as if he were a prisoner.
And where would be the gain? A division of wealth which would seem unjust to many would exist now as well as before, because the idle and the unskillful would receive the same reward as the most industrious and skillful.[495] The opposition of one class of society to another, so much complained [pg 253] of, would continue. The only difference would be, that whereas, it now comes from the weak, it would then come from the strong.[496] Compulsory association is certainly more prolific in strife and crime than is a state of society in which everybody manages his own affairs.
A journey on foot, in company with others, is allowed, on all hands, to be a very good test of friendship. But, a community of goods would, in the strictest sense of the word, be a journey on foot through the whole of life with numberless “friends.” Here, every one would believe himself entitled to possess whatever pleased him. And, who would decide; since so many communists preach the dissolution and extinction of all government, and the reign of anarchy? Besides, there can be no doubt, that the difference of human talents and human wants, would soon, spite of every law, lead to a difference in property again. Hence, that first revolution would have to be repeated from time to time—a real Sisyphus labor! No sooner have the bees produced anything, than the drones come, and divide anew!
Section LXXXIII.
The Organization Of Labor. (Continued.)
Experience, however, teaches us, that, in all the lower stages of civilization, a community of goods exists to a greater or lesser extent.[497] The institution of private property has been more fully evolved out of this condition of things, only in proportion as well-being and culture have been developed as cause and effect of such well-being. Thus, among most nations of hunters and fishermen, the idea of private property was unknown [pg 254] when these nations were first discovered. This is, indeed, very natural. Their chief spring of production flows as if of itself, apparently inexhaustible; and the hunter can hardly think of such a thing as saving any of his booty.[498] And, among nomadic nations, the land is a great meadow held in common; and the industry of plunder is considered, as it is in all inferior stages of civilization, especially honorable.[499] The conquistadores of Peru found there something very like a community of goods, under the despotic guardianship of the state, viz.: a yearly division of all lands among the people, in proportion to their rank; the cultivation of these lands in common, under the superintendence of the state, and to the sound of music. But, at the stage of civilization that Peru was then in, land is about the only resource possessed. The results were the usual ones. A country like Peru, with [pg 255] only one city, no beasts of burthen, no plows, no trades and no commerce, cannot possibly be rich.[500] That the constitution of Lycurgus established a sort of community of goods among the Spartans, is well known. I need only recall the public education, the meals in common, the authorization of stealing,[501] the prohibition of trade, of the precious metals and fine furniture, the equal division of property and the inalienable character of the land[502] etc. With such laws, Sparta could neither be, nor desire to become, wealthy. Of all Greek states of any historical importance, it preserved longest the economic peculiarities belonging to a low stage of civilization. Among most modern nations, the fundamental idea of their land laws, which had their origin in the middle ages, is, that each family is only the usufructuary, and that the community is the sovereign proprietor of the soil. This community of landed possession finds expression, among other things, in the vast extent of communal woods and pasturages, in the varied intersecting of parcels of land one by the other, which, indeed, change proprietors from time to time, and in the common [pg 256] working of the land, carried as far as possible etc.[503] In all medieval times,[504] not only the individual is considered an owner of the land, but, over and above him, the family. At the same time, we are wont to find existing an amount of mortmain property in the hands of corporations, monastery lands, crown lands and domains of very great importance.[505] All these institutions have declined in number and shown a disposition to disappear, in proportion as national husbandry or economy has grown more productive.