Page:James Ramsay MacDonald - The Socialist Movement.pdf/127

 Rh their ability; to each according to his needs" is a Communist, not a Socialist, formula. The Socialist would insert "services" for "needs." They both agree about the comon stock; they disagree regarding the nature of what should be the effective claim of the individual to share in it. Socialists think of distribution through the channels of personal income; Communists think of distribution through the channels of human rights to live. Hence Socialism requires some medium of exchange whether it is pounds sterling or labour notes; Communism requires no such medium of exchange. The difference can best be illustrated if we remember the difference between a customer going to a grocer and buying sugar, and a child of the family claiming a share of that sugar next morning at the breakfast table. Or the position may be stated in this way: Socialism accepts the idea of income, subject to two safeguards. It must be adequate to afford a satisfactory standard of life, and it must represent services given and not merely a power to exploit the labour of others. Communism only considers the sum total required by an individual to satisfy his wants and would limit consumption only as regards the use to which it is put.

Communist economic theories are often joined to Anarchist political ones, and in this conjunction are not unrarely confused with Socialism. Anarchism as a political theory (as a mode of political action the word has a totally different significance) is the negation of the coercive state, and there is far more in