For instance: the coal-mines and all the machinery of the coal-mines
and the houses in which the miners live and the stores of food and
the clothing, etc., which keep the miners alive while the coal is
being mined, that is during the process of production--all these,
which now belong to capitalists who make a profit out of the miners’
labour, would then belong to the State, which would allot the coal
produced to all who needed it. So it would be with all farms, farming
implements, and cattle and horses and the stores of food and clothing
and houses necessary to the labourers on the land during the process of
production. So it would be with all stone-quarrying and timber-felling,
and carpentry and brick-making for the continued production of the
houses necessary to the producers during production. So it would be
with all corresponding material for making cloth for clothing. So it
would be with everything which was made in the whole country. The
officers of the State would share out the wealth produced, so that it
would be consumed by all the citizens, and there would be an end to the
exploitation of one man by another and to the uncertainty of living.
Communism is simply that form of Socialism in which all that is thus
shared out by the State would be shared equally, the State giving every
family an equal share in proportion to the numbers of people which had
to be supported in the family, from one upwards.
The reason I have called Communism the logical and only possible
ultimate form of Socialism is that there could be under Socialism no
reason for any other form of distribution.
Some time ago certain Socialists used to try to get out of this
necessity for Communism, so as not to frighten rich people with their
proposals for reform. They would say to a man who was making, say,
£5,000 a year because he owned a lot of capital and land and had rents
and profits coming to him from the work of his labourers: “You will
have just as much under Socialism, for we recognise what a superior
kind of person you are, and when the State shares out its wealth among
its citizens it will give you as much as you have now, leaving the
same difference between rich and poor, only seeing to it that the poor
always at least have enough to live on. Where we give one ticket to the
labourer to claim out of the common stores what he wants for a week we
will give you fifty tickets, so that you will get fifty times as much
if you like.” But of course this was nonsense, and was soon discovered
to be nonsense. With everybody working for the State under orders all
would naturally claim equality, and there would be no way of preventing
their getting an equal share except force. In justice, supposing a
Socialist state to arise, there could be only the Communist form of it.
This scheme has never been put into practice, and when we look closely
at it we shall discover, I think, why it never will be put into
practice.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account