ANSWER. Admitting that we do; admitting that such an incentive is useful; the simple answer is that Socialism would not destroy compet.i.tion.
Even in financial reward some would still be paid more than others; and far beyond this lies the larger compet.i.tion for fame and glory and public esteem, which has always moved men more strongly than the love of money. This remains always open.
MAIN ERROR. Pa.s.sing over all these minor objections, due to mere ignorance and easily understood, we come to the one major objection, honestly held by intelligent people; that under Socialism people would not work. This is why so many good and intelligent persons do honestly distrust and fear it. Their position is this:
PREMISE A. Work must be done to keep civilization going. Work is done by individuals in order to get something they want. Work would not be done by anyone without the immediate stimulus of personal desire.
PREMISE B. Socialism, in some mysterious way will supply the needs of the people gratuitously.
CONCLUSION. The people being so provided for would not work. Then follows the downfall of civilization.
This is the honest opinion of the individualist, the older economist, and is ent.i.tled to respect and fair answer.
If the premises were correct the terrible conclusion would be correct, and the Socialist position visionary and dangerous. Of course people are afraid of anything that controverts the laws of economics and human nature--they ought to be. But are those premises correct?
To remove the easiest one first let us observe the absurdity of the idea, that Socialism will provide for people without their working.
Provide them with what, pray? All wealth is produced by human labor--there is no socialist patent for drawing bread and circuses from the sky. People must always and forever work for what they have, and have in proportion to the quant.i.ty and quality of their work.
So thoroughly is this true that the socialist grieves to see so many people living to-day without working; receiving wealth out of all proportion to their usefulness. If this was common to all of us it would mean the downfall of civilization. As we live now a great many people work too hard, too long, under unsanitary conditions, a sort of living sacrifice to the rest of the world; and a few people do visibly and ostentatiously consume and waste the very things the workers so painfully lack.
Socialism claims to ensure decent payment for all labor, and see that we all receive it--all of us; not the same for everyone; but enough for everyone. Further, Socialism claims that by such procedure the quant.i.ty and quality of human work would be improved; that more wealth would be produced--far more.
By thus removing Premise B, Premise A becomes a _non sequitur._ We will, however, remove this also, to make a clean sweep.
It is not true that work is only done in order to get something. Some work is done that way by some people. But it is not the only kind of work--and they are not the only kind of people. Even the savage, having exerted himself to get his dinner, and having had his dinner, and being, in a small way, human, begins to exert himself further to decorate his tools and weapons, his canoes and totem poles--because he likes to.
n.o.body pays him for it. He enjoys the act of doing it, and the results.
The reason any ordinary man prefers any one kind of work to another is that he experiences a certain pleasure in the performance of certain actions--more than others. He is beginning to specialize.
The reason the highly specialized social servant, artist, teacher, preacher, scientific student, true physician, inventor, chooses his work, follows it often under disadvantages; and in the case of the enthusiast, even under conditions of danger, pain and death--is that he likes that kind of work, enjoys doing it, indeed _has to do it_--is uncomfortable if prevented.
This is a social instinct which our earlier economists have not recognized. It is proven an instinct by the fact that children have it--all normal children. They like any kind of ordinary work, want to learn how, want to help, long before they attach any idea of gain to the labor.
The little girl in the kitchen wants to make cookies--as well as eat them; longs to print little figures around the pies, and then hold the plate on poised spread fingers and trim off that long broken ribbon of superfluous pastry--wants to do things, as well as to have things. The one instinct is as natural as the other.
The reasons so many of us to-day hate and despise work, avoid it, give it up as soon as possible, are simple and clear. First because of the cruel difficulties with which we have loaded what should be a pleasure--the monotony, the long hours, the disagreeable surroundings, the danger and early death, and the grossly insufficient pay. Any normal boy enjoys working with carpenter"s tools, or blacksmith"s tools; enjoys running a machine; but when such work is saddled with the above conditions, he does not like it. Of course. It is not the work we are averse to, it is what goes with it;--difficulties of our own making.
Further; besides the physical disadvantages, we have loaded this great natural process of human labor with a ma.s.s of superst.i.tions and degrading lies. The lazy old orientals called it a curse! Work, a curse! Work; which is the essential process of human life; man"s natural function and means of growth!
We have despised it because women did it. Glory to the women--without them we should have had no industry. We have despised it because slaves did it. Glory to the slaves! They built the pyramids--not Cheops.
They built every one of the marvelous relics and ruins of the past--the slaves built Athens!
We despise it now because the low and ignorant do it. If there was ever an instance of consummate folly, of churlish ingrat.i.tude, it is our general att.i.tude toward work and the workers. Here are three millions of laboring benefactors; feeding us; clothing us; building our houses; spinning and weaving and sewing for us;--hewing wood and drawing water;--keeping the world alive and moving; and we look down on the work and the workers. As we are not really brutes and fools, how is this absurd position to be accounted for?
By that old fallacy of Premise A. "They are only doing it for themselves," we say. "They are paid for what they do. They wouldn"t do it if they weren"t paid for it!" That is the vital core of the real opposition to Socialism, this erroneous economic idea about work.
If that can ever be changed, if we can look at work with new eyes, then we can look at Socialism with new eyes too; and not be afraid. Then cautiously and rationally, we shall say:
"So this new system of yours proposes to increase human wealth, does it?
To promote and develop all kinds of legitimate work and to distribute the product so as to improve the people? That sounds pretty good to me.
But how do you know you can do it? I"m from Missouri myself--you"ll have to show me."
And then perhaps our wiser Socialists will appeal to the people as a whole, of every grade and cla.s.s; and teach the natural orderly development of this simple and practical system of economics; teach its splendid benefits to all cla.s.ses; and the methods of its legitimate and gradual introduction; by careful ma.s.sing of the facts; by visible proof of things already accomplished. They must show us that we are not facing a great leap in the dark, but clear straight steps in the light, in the orderly progress of social evolution.
CHILD LABOR
The children in the Poor House May die of many an ill, But the Poor House does not profit By their labor in the mill!
The children in the Orphanage Wear raiment far from fine, But no Orphanage is financed By child labor in a mine.
The Cruel Law may send them To Reform School"s iron sway, But it does not set small children To hard labor by the day.
Only the Loving Family, Which we so much admire, Is willing to support itself On little children"s hire.
Only the Human Father, A man, with power to think, Will take from little children The price of food and drink.
Only the Human Mother-- Degraded, helpless thing!
Will make her little children work And live on what they bring!
No fledgling feeds the father-bird!
No chicken feeds the hen!
No kitten mouses for the cat-- This glory is for men.
We are the Wisest, Strongest Race-- Loud my our praise be sung!-- The only animal alive That lives upon its young!
We make the poverty that takes The lives of babies so.
We can awake! rebuild! remake!-- And let our children grow!
WHAT DIANTHA DID
CHAPTER II.
AN UNNATURAL DAUGHTER
The brooding bird fulfills her task, Or she-bear lean and brown; All parent beasts see duty true, All parent beasts their duty do, We are the only kind that asks For duty upside down.
The stiff-rayed windmill stood like a tall mechanical flower, turning slowly in the light afternoon wind; its faint regular metallic squeak p.r.i.c.ked the dry silence wearingly. Rampant fuchsias, red-jewelled, heavy, ran up its framework, with crowding heliotrope and nasturtiums.
Thick straggling roses hung over the kitchen windows, and a row of dusty eucalyptus trees rustled their stiff leaves, and gave an ineffectual shade to the house.
It was one of those small frame houses common to the northeastern states, which must be dear to the hearts of their dwellers. For no other reason, surely, would the cold grey steep-roofed little boxes be repeated so faithfully in the broad glow of a semi-tropical landscape.
There was an attempt at a "lawn," the pet ambition of the transplanted easterner; and a further attempt at "flower-beds," which merely served as a sort of springboard to their far-reaching products.