V. To Each According to His Needs
The rapid development of World capitalist production reached a critical stage at the end of 1929. In the first half of the thirties decade the machines were overflooding the warehouses with every kind of commodity, shoes, clothing, books, metals, timber, hides; newly launched ships were left to rust on the beach without a maiden voyage; stacks of food were burnt or piled for the rats to harvest. As the commodities accumulated factories closed and farms were abandoned; millions of men and women joined the unemployed queues. For the people did not possess sufficient money to buy back the goods they produced. It is futile to say, “Why cannot the workers be given enough money to buy back the goods they produce?” for, as we demonstrated in a previous article, the wages system prevents the worker’s income increasing with his productive power.
Given the capitalist system, there was only one way to employ the idle capital of the World. To turn it to war production; to producing shells and bombs instead of boots and food. To distribute them free to enemies and allies alike by dropping them on their cities. The other alternative was to end capitalist and state-socialist distribution and, continuing to make useful commodities, distribute them freely according to the needs of each. For the productive capacity of modern industry is such that everyone may have enough of the very best of food, clothing, housing, books and all the good things of life by the useful labor of each for a few hours a week. But it can never happen within the bonds of the wages and money systems.
The Syndicalist mode of distribution, then, causes the abolition of these systems and establishes the principle of “to each according to his need.” Not according to the amount of money he has, or according to rank or birth, or according to strength or cunning, but according to need. There is more than enough for all, so why should any go short?
It is often asked (I cannot tell why) who shall determine the nature and limits of a persons needs? Obviously the person himself. If a number of us sit down to dinner at a common table, one may eat twice as much as the average person, another only half as much, but no one is troubled about this. It is left to each to judge the capacity of his own stomach.
So let it be with all utilities. One needs more food than another. One man has no child, another a few children, yet another, many children. Each will have greater or lesser needs than his fellows. Utilities must be free to all. Socialized production demands socialized consumption.
Every society has had some degrees of this mode of distribution. Primitive society a great deal, capitalist society very little. Nevertheless modern capitalist society does give us a glimpse of the principle of free access to goods and services. A hundred years ago many roads could only be traveled on payment of a toll, and some such still exist in England. But now most roads are free; each may travel them little or much, according to his own estimate of his needs. The same is true of bridges and even some ferries. We have public parks, museums and libraries. Is anyone upset if someone sits in the local park all day and every day, while another never enters it? Does a man worry that he never reads a book while his neighbor brings home two or three from the public library twice a week?
A partial application of the principle was made by introducing the penny post. Now it seems strange that a London letter sent to Edinburgh should have cost twice as much as a letter to York. Yet the proposal of the penny post raised a storm of protest. It was said that some would abuse it, for many it seemed strange that a man writing from London to York should pay only as much for his stamp as one writing to Croydon. And to apply the principle to letters going as far even as Australia was to conservative persons just the last word in lunacy. Yet now, in postal matters everyone approves of the principle of “to each according to his needs.”
It is often said that if food were there to be taken some would eat too much. They might the first time, but I doubt if they would keep it up. Water is free, not in the sense that it is not paid for, that is gratis, but its personal consumption is unrestricted. Some drink about a pint a day each, a few several pints, while a few of my friends refuse to touch it, believing it to be a dangerous liquid which even rusts steel and rots shoes. Yet no one abuses the drinking of water. No one hoards it; accumulating buckets and barrels of it in garret and cellar. For each knows there is plenty for him when he needs it. If bread were free would our attitude to it be different? Would anyone try to eat half-a-dozen loaves a day?
It will readily be seen that such a principle of distribution can only be applied when there is a sufficiency of production. If everyone’s need of butter is 8 ounces a week and the stock available allows only of 4 ounces per head per week, then, obviously, another principle must be applied. While capitalist production is enormously high, most of it is designed for the manufacturer if hardly useful, and even harmful, products. Until the Syndicalist productive organization has brought order to the present chaotic industries, distribution must be equal between individuals. Of course, that does not mean that all will consume the exact amount of each particular commodity or utility, but that each shall have an equal share (choice of variety being left to each) of the aggregate of goods available for distribution.
In the case of certain goods being in very short supply the principle of rationing must be applied, but, let us make this clear, this case has nothing in common with the present system of rationing. The basic principle of the present government’s rationing system is not the equal division of goods of which there is a natural shortage. There is no equality. If a person has a great deal of money he may buy whatever rationed goods he needs, even without breaking the law. On the other hand of a person be poor, and this is the case with hundreds of thousands of working people, he may be unable to buy his full ration, particularly of clothes.
Nor is the present rationing, in most cases, the result of shortage. It is an attempt to force the purchasing power of the people from the consumption of useful commodities to the production of munitions and government apparatus.
In the case of certain goods which are in very short supply, these would be reserved for those especially needing them. Black grapes were once associated with sick beds, but no invalid worker may now buy them at the present price of 23 shillings a pound. Nevertheless stout and hearty bourgeois may eat them to surfeit.
While Syndicalism would divide equally the social income and ration equitably goods in shortage, the productive power would be immediately reorganized and set in motion to cure the shortage and then create such a plentiful supply of goods as to enable the social distribution to be accomplished.
Although we could not obtain at once the principle of “to each according to his needs” in all things, yet with some goods and services it would be possible to do this at once. The two principles we have outlined would, for a while, continue to exist side by side. The few cases of free distribution now existing would continue to exist and would be extended. All roads, bridges and ferries would remain free. Parks would be extended and multiplied and to them would be added the public access of moorland, mountain, stream and seashore. Public libraries would be increased and made into cheery, comfortable homes of books, instead of the ill-assorted collections of shabby volumes stores in mausoleums they now are. The same principle of distribution would be extended to other goods and services, two or three, or even half-a-dozen at a time. Speaking personally, I believe the change would be much more rapid than most would dare to believe possible.
Cases for the early application of the principle of free distribution will readily occur to all of us. Postal service, travel and education are obvious examples. House rent is another. On the outbreak of revolution everyone will, naturally, cease paying rent. After the revolution it is unlikely that they will return to their former habit of sustaining the landlords.
It is often asked, “but what if someone wanted a luxury steam yacht or a one hundred roomed mansion?” Well, such things are the product of social labor. At present a rich person may, by his use of money, force others to build him a steam yacht by keeping other employment from them. Under Syndicalism this would be impossible, and it is improbable that any greedy, selfish person would be able to kid a shipyard full of workers to build him a ship for his own hoggish self. There would be steam luxury yachts, but they would be enjoyed in common. I apologize for introducing this question but it is a familiar friend at many of our meetings.
Whether you accept our view of distribution or wish to retain the present will depend on whether you are a “practical” person or an idealist. If you are “sane, level-headed and practical” you will want to live in poverty, dirt and ugliness. You will wear cotton suits and paper shoes; you will grow dyspeptic on a diet of cabbage and starch; you will work yourself to death in a factory or allow your body to be used as common meat. All in order that you may destroy the homes and cities of your Continental neighbor, while he, moved by the same “practical” principles, destroys yours.
But, if you are an “idealist and a dreamer” you will object to living on a poverty standard in a world of plenty. You will chose to enjoy your full share of the good things of life. You will build cities instead of destroying them and heal and make happy your neighbors instead of maiming and killing them. You will play your part in the building of the New World which is not only possible but whose coming is imperative.