Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 6.djvu/245

Rh C M M U N i S M 217 chief.s ; individual liberty is entirely suspended; the smallest minutiae of the daily life of their members is regulated from headquarters. A government which decides at what hour its subjects shall go to bed at night and rise m the morning ; which prescribes the colour, shape, and material of the dresses worn, the time of meals, the quality of the food consumed, the daily task apportioned to each member ; which enforces a rule that each of its subjects shall leave every morning a notice stating at what exact spot he or she will be found during each hour of the day ; a government which can do all these things will find no great difficulty in controlling the number of marriages and births. Mr Nordhoff states that &quot; the fundamental principle of communal life is the subordination of the individual s will to the general interest or the general will ; practically this takes the shape of unquestioning obedience by the members towards the elders or chiefs of their society.&quot; If, however, communism were adopted through out a whole nation, the minute despotism which now distinguishes the government of existing communistic societies, and which furnishes them with an effectual con trol over the growth of population, would cease to be possible ; or if, indeed, it should ever become possible it would be through the careful suppression of individual liberty, and through the strenuous encouragement of everything which tended to destroy self-reliance on the part of the people and to build up the absolute power of the state. A people who purchased material prosperity at the price of their liberty would strike a bad bargain, especially when it is remembered that the limitation of the number of marriages and births which is enforced by the central authority in a communistic society can be effected by voluntary self-control in a society based on private property and competition. The difference, therefore, so far as the population question is concerned, between communism and private property is whether the necessary restraint upon the possible number of births shall proceed from the direct intervention of the state, or whether it shall proceed from the combined motives of self-interest, self-control, and parental obligation on the part of the people themselves. It should be remembered that what communism professes to be able to do is to ensure to every member of a com munistic society an ample supply of the necessaries and conveniences of life. If the population question is pressing now when the workhouse and parochial relief are the only refuge of those who cannot maintain themselves, would it not become much more pressing if a man could obtain freely, and without fulfilling any disagreeable conditions, food, house, and clothing for himself, and as many children as he chose to bring into existence 1 It is this consideration which has forced upon the government of communistic societies the control of the marriages and births of their members. Even where the principles of communism are adopted in so very materially modified a form as they are in our poor law system, legislative control over population has been enforced. The regulation which separates man and wife in the workhouse is a practical recognition of the principle that, where the State guarantees a maintenance, it must, in self-protection, exercise control over the numbers of those dependent on it for support. Self-help brings with it self-control ; state-help makes state-control indis pensable. In the present economic condition of society the solution of the population question is not to be found in placing in the hands of the state, as communism has done, absolute control over domestic life. The solution of the problem must be sought in education, in an improved standard of comfort and a determination on the part of the people not to sink below it, and in a reform of the most communistic portion of our poor law system, the lavish distribution of out-door relief. labour. There are some charges made against communism which may be brought with at least equal force against the economic and industrial arrangements which now prevail. One of these is that communism does not avail itself Self, sufficiently of the motive of self-interest in order to obtain interest as from each labourer the best and most conscientious work f _, motive to of which he is capable. If, it is urged, the result of a man s industry belongs not to himself solely but to the whole community of which he is a member, he will not throw the same energy and zeal into his work as he will if everything which he produces belongs solely to himself. There can be no doubt of the truth of this statement ; self-interest is a force on which industrial machinery chiefly relies for motive power. But it is remarkable that the prevailing system of working for fixed weekly wages checks the play of self-interest in the workman much more completely than it is checked in a communistic society by the fact that the results of the labour of each are shared by all. A workman who is in receipt of fixed weekly wages has no motive to reach any higher standard of excellence &amp;lt;_ expedition in his work than such as will prevent him from being dis charged for bad k work or laziness. It is a complaint con stantly heard among employers of labour that the only ambition of the men seems to be to see how little work they can do for their wages. The actual existence of this feeling among workmen is proved by many of the rules of trades unions, such as that which limits the number of bricks which a hod-man is allowed to carry, and which in one case forbade the use of wheel barrows in taking bricks from one spot to another. Mr Thornton s book On Labour gives several examples of the rules adopted by trades unions to check the tendency which is sometimes found in a workman to exert himself to do his best and thus show his superiority over his fellows. &quot; Not besting one s mates has by several unions been made the subject of special enactment The Manchester Bricklayers Association has a rule providing that any man found running or working beyond a regular speed shall be fir.ed 2s. 6d. for the first offence, 5s. for the second, 10s. for the third, and if still persisting shall be dealt with as the committee think proper. &quot; It was urged by the trade unionists in the textile manufactures of Lancashire and Yorkshire as a serious argument for placing impediments in the way of the employment of women in these industries that they were apt to take a pride and pleasure in the excel lence and rapidity of their work, and that their vanity was such that a word of praise or encouragement from the overlooker would cause them to redouble their exertions (Report of Dr Bridges and Mr Holmes on the condition of women and children employed in Textile Industries, 1873). These examples are more than sufficient evidence that the present industrial system does not bring into play the motive force of direct self-interest in stimulating the exertions of the labourers. In this respect com munism would seem at first sight to compare favourably with mere wages-receiving industry ; for in a commu nistic society every man and woman has some direct share, however small, in the results of his or her labour. If more is produced, there will be more to receive ; and instead of a trades union, every member of which ia pledged, under penalties, to work slowly and to watch that his fellow-workmen do the same, communism gives to each labourer a direct interest not only in work ing well himself, but in watching to see that honest and steady work is done by his neighbours. As a matter of fact, the American communistic societies have found no difficulty in enforcing the habit of careful and regular in dustry on their members. The American communists do not as a rule work hard ; for they find that they can provide for all the wants of the community without exces- VI 28