The simple life under Socialism
A Letter from a Correspondent.
Paignton, Devon.
Sept. 7, 1945.
The Editor, Socialist Standard.
Sir,
COMMON OWNERSHIP.
A man of simple tastes—and there are many such— might not desire theatres, cinemas, wine, beer, spirits, tobacco, or even books.
Why should he work, say, four hours a day labour time in a society which provides these, together with chewing gum, lipstick, powder, scent, nail varnish and much of the finery and fiddle-dee-dee of women, when a society of persons working on average, each, one hour per day can produce his comparatively simple needs?
What, then, does common ownership mean in this regard?
Yours faithfully,
Chas. E. Berry.
Reply.
Our correspondent's question arises partly from carrying over to Socialism a standard of judgment that is only appropriate to capitalism. Under capitalism the workers have good reason to dislike the conditions under which they work, because they are working for the benefit of the capitalist and under the harsh discipline the latter’s agents impose, and because hours are excessive and working places often drab, dangerous, uncomfortable and insanitary. From this many workers draw the erroneous conclusion the expenditure of energy on the production of articles useful to society is in its nature unavoidably unpleasant, and that the only pleasant expenditure of energy is on some activity not connected with production. This is absurd, as a little reflection will show. Every Socialist who uses his leisure time deriving pleasure from doing work connected with propaganda and organisation for Socialism is well aware that these same activities may be distasteful when performed for an employer. Under Socialism, when the conditions surrounding work have been freed from all capitalist features, labour will be, as Marx pointed out, “no longer the means to live, but . . . in itself the first of vital needs.” (Criticism of the Gotha Programme.)
Our correspondent may nevertheless maintain that the individual whose requirements are less than the average requirements of the members of Socialist society has a right to refuse to work as much as other people, even if the work is not distasteful. Suppose for the sake of argument, we concede our correspondent's claim. May we now ask him on what possible ground he can restrict this solely to the “man of simple tastes”? Why, on his contention, should not every individual object to working part of his time to produce articles that are going to be consumed either by non-producers or by those who, for one reason or another, cannot produce as much as the average? If the man of simple tastes can reasonably claim that he should work two hours against other people’s four hours, why should not every able bodied man and women who works object to the necessity of providing food, clothing and shelter for the non-workers, the babies, the aged, the sick, the disabled? If these “passengers” were allowed to starve, the able-bodied working population could produce their own requirements with much less expenditure of energy!
The whole proposition overlooks the fact that we have, as human beings, an interest in the well-being and happiness of the rest of human society, and under Socialism normal people will not desire to segregate themselves from the generally agreed arrangements for producing the requirements of all.
If, however, some individuals really think it important to discourage a high standard of living, they will have the obvious democratic remedy. They can try to convince the majority. Clad in a simple loincloth (though not in the English climate), eating only the simplest foods, living in plain, easily erected dwellings, or a hole in the ground, eschewing alcohol, tobacco, books, theatres, cinemas, etc., etc., they can set out to persuade the unregenerate majority that there is within their grasp a peace and pleasure yet unknown to them if only they will go and do likewise and cut the working day to one hour instead of four.
Alternatively, why should not the men and women of simple tastes, who are not interested in the ways of the rest of humanity, be left alone to enjoy their simple life, segregated like the insane, surrounded by a band of silence, to live and die in splendid isolation?
Ed. Comm.
No comments:
Post a Comment