Section LXXXII.. The Organization of Labor.

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 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 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!