In our issue for November, 1945 (“The Simple Life Under Socialism"), we replied to a correspondent who had asked whether, under Socialism, a man of simple tastes would have to work for as many hours as those whose needs are greater. We have received a further letter.
London, E.11.
Editor, Socialist Standard,
2, Rugby St, W.C.1.
Sir,
“Common Ownership"
Surely it is not the intention of the S.P.G.B. to ghetto-ize, or put in a concentration camp, all those who resent giving extra labour time to produce a standard of life for others in a Socialist Society, far above that which the objectors seek for themselves? It is the purport of your reply to my earlier letter to do so. But I cannot believe it without further information.
It isn't fair to caricature my Objector as a Simple Lifer, thriving on little more than plates of fresh air.
Ernie Bevin likes motor cars, others like aeroplanes, so all I ask is that the extra labour time “equivalent” to the production of these extras shall be provided by Ernie Bevin and aeroplane fanatics. The same goes for tobacco, alcohol, scent, and so on. A very large minority may not want these things, thereby living at a standard requiring less labour time. I do not refer to an extreme simple lifer, such as your caricature for the purpose of your case, as it is easy to cater for a few simple lifers.
I grant that children do not produce and must be provided for out of a common fund, but it doesn’t affect the point I’ve raised as regards those adults who are satisfied in the production caused by substantially less than the average labour time per capita, and do not wish to yield more labour time.
Unless you can explain, I am afraid that common ownership has a very elastic meaning—if any.
Since “ need ” is the basis of your case, and exchange is ruled out, as is the receipt of the product of one’s own labour or its equivalent, you must face the question in this letter.
Yours faithfully,
Chas. E. Berry.
Reply.
It will be useful to start by making it clear that the problem, if it arose at all, could only be a small one. Firstly, it obviously could not affect a majority of the population because they could decide in accordance with their wishes. Nor could it, as our correspondent assumes, affect “a very large minority.’' While there may be a group that does not want tobacco, another that does not want alcohol, and innumerable similar groups, it is entirely false reasoning to add them together and thus make up "a very large minority” of the population. The problem only concerns those people who want a low standard of living all round, and if we ask ourselves how many people there could be who want none of the things listed by our correspondent—in his earlier letter he mentioned also books, theatres and cinemas—the answer is obviously that there could be very few. (It should be observed that doing without cars and aeroplanes looks simple but may cover much. Are these individuals intending to do without all articles transported by those means?)
If, however, we grant that there might be a small minority that has no wish to share in most of the articles and services that the majority of the population consider desirable, it still does not follow that all of this minority will want to work fewer hours than the rest of the community. Let us, however, suppose, for the sake of argument, that there may be a small minority that wants a low standard of living and insists on very short working hours (as also possibly a few anti-social individuals who want to consume but not to work at all). Why should society bother about such small problems? Both groups could well be left to please themselves. The alternative would be for the majority to burden themselves with making special arrangements to measure each individual's work and consumption. Socialism will not need or want any such capitalist notions. In conclusion we must emphasise how unimportant such hypothetical problems are in relation to the benefits that the great mass of the population will derive from Socialism. The millions who, for the first time, get security and adequate food, clothing and shelter, and who work shorter hours than they do now, will not be unduly exercised in their minds about the proposition of doing without lots of things in order to work, say, only one hour a day. It seems reasonable to suppose that the majority will easily agree on a standard of comfort and corresponding hours of work, which, without being exactly what all groups or individuals require, will please most people and not give any a cause for a sense of grievance.
Editorial Committee
No comments:
Post a Comment