|
Class War
Chapter 7: Communism Considered
By Punkerslut
Start Date:
April 28, 2002
Finish Date:
June 25, 2002
|
"[The capitalist classes] insist that they are the rightful possessors of wealth which comes in to them without any labour on their part, and attempt to raise the cry of 'Stop thief' against those who venture even to investigate the origin of their wealth. Our capitalists persist to the bitter end in the fatuous assertion that to live idly on the labour of others is not the same thing as to steal." -- Henry Stephens Salt ["Thou Shalt Not Steal," Justice, March 14, 1885.]
Section I: Introduction
It has long been the slogan of the common political man to state, "Communism works in theory, but fails in practice." However, this is not enough to satisfy the reasoning or logic of any learned man. If something works theoretically, but fails when tested, then there is not something wrong with the test -- but with the theory itself. So it goes with claiming that "5 + 5 = 11" seems just, reasonable and logical, and then complaining that the test itself of producing 10 instead of 11 is the factor which failed. If the practice of Communism fails, it is not because it is the sole practice of it which has failed, but rather the theory. The question that lays ahead is, "If Socialism can be the savior of the Proletariat, then what can be said of Communism? Is it just, needed, or possible?"
Section II: Arguments for Communism
One of the primary positions of Communism is equal ownership of all property. To quote Alexander Berkman...
"You said that Anarchy will secure economic equality," remarks your friend. "Does that mean equal pay for all?"
It does. Or, what amounts to the same, equal participation in the public welfare. Because, as we already know, labor is social. No man can create anything all by himself, by his own efforts. Now, then, if labor is social, it stands to reason that the results of it, the wealth. produced, must also be social, belong to the collectivity. No person can therefore justly lay claim to the exclusive ownership of the social wealth. It is to be enjoyed by all alike.
"But why not give each according to the value of his work?" you ask.
Because there is no way by which value can be measured. That is the difference between value and price. Value is what a thing is worth, while price is what it can be sold or bought for in the market. What a thing is worth no one really can tell. Political economists generally claim that the value of a commodity is the amount of labor required to produce it, of "socially necessary labor," as Marx says. But evidently it is not a just standard of measurement. Suppose the carpenter worked three hours to make a kitchen chair, while the surgeon took only half an hour to perform an operation that saved your life. If the amount of labor used determines value, then the chair is worth more than your life. Obvious nonsense, of course. Even if you should count in the years of study and practice the surgeon needed to make him capable of performing the operation, how are you going to decide what "an hour of operating" is worth? The carpenter and mason also had to be trained before they could do their work properly, but you don't figure in those years of apprenticeship when you contract for some work with them. Besides, there is also to be considered the particular ability and aptitude that every worker, writer, artist or physician must exercise in his labors. That is a purely individual, personal factor. How are you going to estimate its value?
That is why value cannot be determined. The same thing may be worth a lot to one person while it is worth nothing or very little to another. It may be worth much or little even to the same person, at different times. A diamond, a painting, or a book may be worth a great deal to one man and very little to another. A loaf of bread will be worth a great deal to you when you are hungry, and much less when you are not. Therefore the real value of a thing cannot be ascertained; it is an unknown quantity.
But the price is easily found out. If there are five loaves of bread to be had and ten persons want to get a loaf each, the price of bread will rise. If there are ten loaves and only five buyers, then it will fall. Price depends on supply and demand. [Now And After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism, by Alexander Berkman, chapter 22, 1929.]
There are a few comments that are to be said of Mr. Berkman's assertions. First, he claims that labor and its products are the result of a social working and that no man can make something all alone. That claim is simply false. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, there were workshops where individuals made things completely by themselves. Of course, it would be more accurate for Mr. Berkman to claim that nothing today can be made alone, or at least a few products can be made alone. Next, he goes to obscure the meaning of value and claims that it cannot be determined. He even claims that the training of artisans is not taken into consideration when their services are acquired, which is entirely false -- as nobody would pay a carpenter to make a chair when the carpenter has never been to carpentry school. Price, he says, is easily discovered, but value is impossible to discover. Price is based on value. And even though value of things may change from different people, it is quite clear that they are also seen in objective view: an amount of money. As far as industry goes, workers are often paid on the amount of value their work accumulates. A surgeon brings in so much money for his employer, capital, and then he takes some of it. Thus we have a system of value. To negate that value and price are contrary, unrelated concepts is to go against every economical observation in history. When shown the point that a man of more skill deserves to make more money than a man of less skill, Berkman responds....
"But is it just that all should share alike?" you demand. "The man of brains and the dullard, the efficient and the inefficient, all the same? Should there be no distinction, no special recognition for those of ability?"
Let me in turn ask you, my friend, shall we punish the man whom nature has not endowed as generously as his stronger or more talented neighbor? Shall we add injustice to the handicap nature has put upon him? All we can reasonably expect from any man is that he do his best-can any one do more? And if John's best is not as good as his brother Jim's, it is his misfortune, but in no case a fault to be punished.
There is nothing more dangerous than discrimination. The moment you begin discriminating against the less capable, you establish conditions that breed dissatisfaction and resentment: you invite envy, discord, and strife. You would think it brutal to withhold from the less capable the air or water they need. Should not the same principle apply to the other wants of man? After all, the matter of food, clothing, and shelter is the smallest item in the world's economy. [Now And After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism, by Alexander Berkman, chapter 22, 1929.]
If we are to follow the reasoning laid here by Berkman, then we should also eat dirt that an atrophied farmer failed to turn into food -- we should live in a cave because an architect was unskilled -- and we should, similarly, ask a child to perform surgery on us, because to do otherwise, according to Berkman, would be "discrimination." It is a rather silly, absurd, and ridiculous statement made here by him. Owners of capital prefer to have better workers: this cannot be denied. The workers who work harder and produce more deserve to be rewarded with more. This is not necessarily discrimination. A Capitalist wants a good worker so he'll have a good product. Discrimination would have been if he had chosen a bad worker over a good worker on grounds unrelated to quality (such as race). This Communism certainly is a front to freedom, as it opposes one's right to choose a superior product over a poor product, or a superior worker over a poor worker. With this system in place, as well, there would be no need for anyone to engage in self-advancement. Of laziness, to quote Alexander Berkman...
"But what will you do with the lazy man, the man who does not want to work?" inquires your friend.
That is an interesting question, and you will probably be very much surprised when I say that there is really no such thing as laziness. What we call a lazy man is generally a square man in a round hole. That is, the right man in the wrong place. And you will always find that when a fellow is in the wrong place, he will be inefficient or shiftless. For so-called laziness and a good deal of inefficiency are merely unfitness, misplacement. If you are compelled to do the thing you are unfitted for by your inclinations or temperament, you will be inefficient at it; if you are forced to do work you are not interested in, you will be lazy at it.
Every one who has managed affairs in which large numbers of men were employed can substantiate this. Life in prison is a particularly convincing proof of the truth of it and, after all, present-day existence for most people is but that of a larger jail. Every prison warden will tell you that inmates put to tasks for which they have no ability or interest are always lazy and subject to continuous punishment. But as soon as these "refractory convicts" are assigned to work that appeals to their leanings, they become "model men," as the jailers term them. [Now And After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism, by Alexander Berkman, chapter 22, 1929.]
It is interesting to see that instead of actually answering the argument of laziness, Berkman instead claimed that laziness does not exist. The evidence he provided lays within two paragraphs. I remain unconvinced of his statements. Another argument of Berkman...
The Individualists and Mutualists maintain that liberty means "the right of every one. to the product of his toil"; which is true, of course. Liberty does mean that. But the question is not whether one has a right to his product, but whether there is such a thing as an individual product. I have pointed out in preceding chapters that there is no such thing in modern industry: all labor and the products of labor are social. The argument, therefore, about the right of the individual to his product has no practical merit. [Now And After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism, by Alexander Berkman, chapter 23, 1929.]
Even though work is social, it does not eliminate the possibility of an individual piece of property. Working together does not automatically mean that one man owns everything, as do all other men. It simply means that we ought to be fair and considerate in all of our transactions. For example, if a child were to sell a flower for a dime, that does not automatically mean he is entitled to shares of stock, for he had put in no labor in such endeavors to begin with. He simply sold a flower at a fair price. To stipulate that he therefore is in ownership of Corporate American is a baseless, foundationless, and absurd statement.
Section III: Conclusion
Communism, although it may have been viewed some years as "pie in the sky," is certainly no form of freedom, or ultimate freedom. Rather, it works to provide an equal pay to all, giving equal to the good carpenter and to the bad carpenter, giving equal to the dedicated laborer and to the lazy laborer -- or even denying the existence of the lazy laborer. So, we find, that Communism violates the Four Rights of the Workers, as it deprives them of the Right to Fair Compensation and instead, pays the fruits of labor of one worker, to another worker. So, while one man does no work, he is fed and housed by the labor of another -- it astoundingly and remarkably resembles Capitalism.
|
