10. Relation of the I. W. W. theory to anarchism. (Brooks,American Syndicalism: The I. W. W., chapter xiv.)
143. SIGNIFICANCE OF BOLSHEVISM.-The term "bolshevist" is used to designate a group of militant socialists that seized power in Russia in the fall of 1917. Strictly speaking, the bolshevists were purely a Russian group, nevertheless, they are of interest to students of American democracy. Until the outbreak of the World War socialism was primarily a theory, the claims of which could not definitely be settled for the reason that it had never been applied on a large scale. Bolshevism is significant because it is the only instance in the history of the world where nation-wide socialism has actually been put into operation. The peculiar conditions surrounding the Russian experiment may prevent any detailed conclusions as to the availability of bolshevist experience for other countries; on the other hand, the general results of that experiment must throw some light upon what we might expect if a socialist experiment were made in other countries. It is important, therefore, that we inquire into the nature of the Russian socialist state.
144. ORIGIN OF THE BOLSHEVISTS.—There is a popular impression that since the word bolshevist means "majority" in the Russian language, the bolshevists represented or constituted a majority of the Russian people. This is not true, as the history of the group shows. The origin of the bolshevists dates from a convention of the Russian Social-Democratic party in 1903, at which time a majority (bolshinstvˇ) took an extreme stand upon the policies then being discussed in convention. In the years that followed the bolshevists became known as the radical or extreme wing of the Russian Social- Democratic party, as opposed to the menshevists, or moderate wing.
It appears that as early as 1905 the bolshevists planned to secure control of the Russian government. The opportunity presented itself during the World War, which Russia had entered early in August, 1914. In March, 1917, a non-bolshevist group initiated a revolution, which overthrew the government of the Czar and established a provisional government under the leadership of Alexander Kerensky. This government immediately instituted a number of democratic reforms, including the extension of the suffrage to all men and women who were Russian citizens. These citizens elected delegates to a constituent assembly, but at this point the bolshevists, seeing that the voters of Russia were overwhelmingly against bolshevism, attacked the new government. The constituent assembly was forcibly dissolved, its defenders slaughtered, and on November 7, 1917, the bolshevists seized the reins of government. Thus bolshevism as a government came into being as the result of suppressing the lawfully expressed will of the Russian people.
145. THE BOLSHEVIST CONSTITUTION: LIBERAL ELEMENTS.—On July 10, 1918, the bolshevists adopted a constitution. This remarkable document was a strange compound of liberal and despotic elements. It made a number of important promises to the people of Russia, announcing, for example, that the new government would "put an end to every ill that oppresses humanity." In pursuit of this ideal, the church was separated from the state, and complete freedom of conscience was accorded all citizens of Russia. Citizens were to enjoy complete freedom of speech and of the press. For the purpose of "securing freedom of expression to the toiling masses," provision was made for the free circulation throughout the country of newspapers, books, and pamphlets. Full and general education to the poorest peasantry was also promised. Capital punishment was declared abolished, and a solemn protest against war and violence of every kind was adopted.
146. THE BOLSHEVIST CONSTITUTION: RESTRICTED SUFFRAGE.—These liberal provisions were offset, however, by a number of important restrictions upon the voting rights of the people. Article IV of the bolshevist constitution declared that the right to vote should not be extended to the following groups: all persons employing hired laborers for profit, including farmers who have even a single part-time helper; all persons receiving incomes from interest, rent, or profits; all persons engaged in private trade, even to the smallest shop-keeper; all ministers of religion of any kind; all persons engaged in work which was not specifically defined by the proper authorities as "productive and useful to society"; members of the old royal family; and individuals formerly employed in the imperial police service. The constitution further provided that representation in the various deliberative assemblies (called soviets, or councils) should be arranged so that one urban bolshevist would be equal, in voting strength, to five non- bolshevist peasants. Lastly, the constitution significantly neglected to provide any machinery whereby the voters, either as individuals or in groups, could make nominations for any governmental office. The power of nomination was assumed by various bolshevist officials.
147. THE BOLSHEVIST CONSTITUTION: PROVISION FOR A DESPOTISM.—The bolshevist constitution frankly provided for a despotism. "For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power," reads the concluding section of chapter two of the constitution, "and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, (the capitalist or employing class), it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that a socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed." These steps, the constitution goes on to state, were to be taken for the express purpose of introducing nation-wide socialism into Russia.
148. "DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT."—Shortly after the publication of the constitution, Lenin and Trotzky, the two bolshevist leaders, established what was called the "dictatorship of the proletariat." The word proletariat refers vaguely to the working classes, but the bolshevists interpreted the term to cover only that portion of the workers which was pledged to the support of socialist doctrine. Lenin admitted that a small number of bolshevized workingmen, the proletariat, was maintaining, by force of arms, a despotic control over the masses of the people. "Just as 150,000 lordly landowners under Czarism dominated the 130,000,000 of Russian peasants," he once declared, "so 200,000 members of the bolshevist party are imposing their will on the masses." According to these figures, the controlling element in Russia included less than one sixth of one per cent of the people.
From the first, the great majority of the peasants stolidly resisted the socialization of the country, but this did not discourage the bolshevist leaders. "We have never spoken of liberty," said Lenin early in 1921. "We are exercising the dictatorship of the proletariat in the name of the minority because the peasant class in Russia is not yet with us. We shall continue to exercise it until they submit. I estimate the dictatorship will last about forty years."
149. SUPPRESSION OF DEMOCRACY.—The democratic tendencies evidenced under the Kerensky regime, and apparently encouraged by some of the provisions of the bolshevist constitution, were quickly checked by the dictatorship. It became the policy of the government to deprive "all individuals and groups of rights which could be utilized by them to the detriment of the socialist revolution." The semblance of a representative system was retained, but voting power was so distributed as to allow an oligarchic group to control the government's policies. This group had the power to disallow elections which went against it, as well as the power to force the dismissal from local Soviets of anti-bolshevist members. The right to vote could be arbitrarily withdrawn by order of the central authorities. Free speech and the right to enjoy a free press were suppressed. Lenin admitted that bolshevism "does not represent the toiling masses," and declared that "the word democracy cannot be scientifically applied to the bolshevist party." Both Lenin and Trotzky declared that they had no fixed policy except to do whatever at the moment seemed expedient, regardless of previous statements or promises.
150. ABOLITION OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM.—Socialism, so long a theory, became a practical concern at the moment that the bolshevists secured control of the government. Private property in land was abolished, the arable land of Russia being apportioned among agriculturists without compensation to the former owners. All mines, forests, and waterways of national importance were taken over by the central government, while the smaller woods, rivers, and lakes became the property of the local Soviets. Banking establishments were seized and looted by bolshevist forces. Factories, railroads, and other means of production and transport were taken over. Inheritance was abolished. Private initiative in business was forbidden. Members of the capitalist or employing classes were imprisoned, murdered, or driven from the country. In a word, the capitalistic system was destroyed, and the economic and political machinery of the country came under the full control of a small socialist group, maintained in power by armed force.
151. PARALYSIS OF INDUSTRY UNDER SOCIALISM.—The substitution of socialism for capitalism in Russia was followed by disaster. The workers were unable to carry on the industries which had been handed over to them. Discouraged by repeated errors in administration, and demoralized by their sudden rise to power, they neglected their work and pillaged the factories and shops in which they had formerly been employed. The elimination of the managing employers resulted in a decrease in output, and to aggravate the situation the laborers continued to insist upon a shorter and shorter working day. In desperation the government attempted to keep the people at their tasks by force. The workers were exploited to a degree previously unknown, even in Russia. They worked longer hours and for less pay than formerly. In many places they were attached to their tasks like medieval serfs, and even harnessed to carts like beasts of burden. The trade unions were abolished, and the workers were forbidden to strike, on pain of imprisonment or death. Yet despite these measures the output of factories, mills, and mines steadily decreased. Industry stagnated, and business fell away. The millions of Russia were starving in a land of plenty.
152. RETURN TO CAPITALISTIC METHODS.—To save the country from economic ruin, Lenin turned to capitalism. Free initiative and open competition in trade were again allowed. The socialization of railroads, mills, and natural resources was halted. The arable land, which under socialism had not grown enough food to support even the peasants living upon it, was again cultivated under the wage system. The capitalists and managing employers who were alive and still in Russia, were gathered together and placed in charge of industry. The laborers, who had been promised an eight- or six-hour day and complete control of industry, were now forced by the bolshevist government to work long hours under their former employers for practically no pay. By 1919 the essential features of the capitalistic system had been accepted by Lenin and Trotzky, the bolshevists continuing in power as a despotic group which maintained authority over the laborers and the employers by armed force. The theory that all except the laborers are parasites had been exploded.
153. WAS SOCIALISM GIVEN A FAIR TRAIL IN RUSSIA?—To point out that an experiment has failed is one thing; to prove that it has been attempted under fair conditions is quite another. We cannot, therefore, condemn the bolshevist experiment without some regard for the conditions under which it was conducted.
Undoubtedly, the bolshevists had to contend against several important difficulties. The majority of the Russian people are illiterate peasants, who had had, at the time of the overthrow of the Czar in 1917, little or no training in self-government. In 1917, Russia was, moreover, in a state of political demoralization, the result of three years of war, concluded by a military debacle and a disorderly peace. The suddenness with which socialism was introduced was also a factor which handicapped the bolshevists.
On the other hand, many favorable conditions were present. With respect to natural resources, Russia is one of the richest countries in the world. She has practically everything necessary to a healthy and self-sufficing industrial life. Over this wealth the bolehevists had full control. Lenin, the bolshevist chief, is conceded to have been a remarkable executive, so that the socialist experiment was conducted by a man not only well versed in Marxian doctrine, but capable of exercising an intelligent and authoritative control of the government. The bolshevist territory was blockaded by Great Britain, France, and the United States, but trade connections between Russia and the two last-named countries had been unimportant. Trade connections with Germany and Sweden on the west, and China on the east, were not broken off.
It is clear that the socialist experiment in Russia was attended by important advantages and disadvantages. Whether or not bolshevism had an absolutely fair trial is as yet impossible to say. On the other hand, the disastrous failure of the experiment would seem to indicate that it could not have met with any great degree of success under fairly favorable conditions. The admissions of the bolshevist leaders themselves, together with the conclusions of the most impartial investigators of the experiment, justify the conclusion that socialism in Russia failed because it was based upon false principles. The bolshevists have been accused of having instituted a reign of terror, bringing in its train lawlessness, murder, desecration of the church, and the most brutal savagery. Into these charges we cannot go; it is enough that the most reliable evidence goes to show that bolshevism, as a nation-wide application of socialist doctrine, was a failure.
154. FAILURE OF BOLSHEVIST PROPAGANDA BEYOND RUSSIA.—Bolshevism, in common with other varieties of socialism, sought to break down national barriers and to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat in all of the countries of the world. Some of the milder socialists in western Europe and America disavowed the acts of the Russian group, but the majority of socialists beyond Russia appear to have at least secretly sympathized with the bolshevists. Encouraged by this attitude, Lenin and Trotzky frankly admitted their intention of fomenting world-wide revolution. The bolshevist government appropriated large sums for propaganda in countries beyond Russia, and socialist sympathizers everywhere advocated an attempt to overthrow "world capitalism." In the period of unrest immediately following the World War there was some response to bolshevist propaganda in a number of countries, but sounder opinion prevailed, and in 1920 Lenin admitted that the workingmen of Europe and America had definitely rejected his program. The one case of nation-wide socialism had proved too great a failure not to impress the laboring classes in the more advanced countries of the world as a visionary and unworkable scheme.
1. Why is bolshevism of interest to students of American democracy?
2. Explain the origin of the bolshevists.
3. How did the bolshevists come into power?
4. To what extent was the bolshevist constitution liberal?
5. To what extent did it restrict the suffrage?
6. What did the bolshevist constitution say concerning a "red" army?
7. Explain the phrase, "dictatorship of the proletariat."
8. How did the bolshevists suppress democracy in Russia?
9. Outline the steps by which the bolshevists destroyed capitalism.
10. What were the effects of this destruction?
11. Why did Lenin return to capitalism?
12. Was bolshevism given a fair trial?
13. What was the fate of bolshevist propaganda beyond Russia?
1. Williamson,Readings in American Democracy, chapter xv.
Or all of the following:
2. Bloomfield,Modern Industrial Movements, pages 295-302.
3. Bolshevist constitution, reprinted in the above reference, pages 243-258; copies may also be secured by writing toThe Nation, New York City.
4. Brasol,Socialism versus Civilisation, chapter iii.
1. What occurred in Russia on October 28, 1917? (Brasol, page 113.)
2. What was the substance of the bolshevist announcement of the overthrow of the Kerensky government? (Brasol, page 114.)
3. What was the attitude of the menshevists toward the bolshevists after the latter had seized control in Russia? (Brasol, pages 120- 122.)
4. What opinion did the bolshevists express with regard to world civilization? (Bolshevist constitution, chapter iii.)
5. In what body did the constitution vest supreme control over the bolshevist government? (Bolshevist constitution, chapter v.)
6. What was the food situation in bolshevist Russia? (Brasol, page 129.)
7. Discuss the output of coal and iron under bolshevist rule. (Brasol pages 132-133.)
8. Describe agricultural conditions under the bolshevists. (Brasol, pages 133-135)
9. Describe the condition of transportation in bolshevist Russia. (Brasol, pages 135-141.)
10. What were the results of the bolshevist attempt to fix prices by governmental decree? (Brasol, pages 154-155.)
11. What was the attitude of bolshevism toward the peasants? (Bloomfield, page 297.)
12. What was the relation between bolshevist theory and bolshevist practice? (Bloomfield, pages 299-300.)
1. Make as thorough a study as the time allows of material appearing in newspapers and magazines, between November, 1917, and the present time, on the subject of bolshevism. (Consult newspaper files, and also theReaders' Index to Periodical Literature.)
(a) Classify the material according as it consists of direct quotations from bolshevist leaders, or of indirect quotations.
(b) Classify the material according as it is favorable to bolshevism, unfavorable, or neutral.
(c) Classify the material according as it consists of reports of persons who had themselves actually investigated the situation in Russia, or reports based upon hearsay evidence.
(d) What conclusions do you draw from this study?
2. The essential elements of the bolshevist constitution.
3. Bolshevist propaganda in the United States. (Hearings before a sub-committee of the Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1919.)
4. Attitude of the United States government toward bolshevism. (Memorandum on certain aspects of the Bolshevist Movement in Russia, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1919.)
5. Bolshevism and the Russian trade unions. (Current History Magazine, published by the New YorkTimes, September, 1920.)
6. The character of Lenin. (Bloomfield,Modern Industrial Movements, page's 203-271.)
7. Return of the bolshevists to capitalism. (Bloomfield,Modern Industrial Movements, pages 291-295.)
8. Socialist attempts to explain or justify the failure of bolshevism. (Brasol,Socialism versus Civilisation, chapter iv.)
155. ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES CONFRONTING SOCIALISM.—Under socialism the work of government would be greatly increased. Thousands of intricate administrative rules would have to be drawn up for the control and direction of activities now attended to by individuals animated by personal interest.
Now, it is seriously to be questioned whether the most highly centralized government could effectively administer the innumerable activities of our complex industrial life. Upon what basis would land be distributed? How would individuals be apportioned among the various employments? Upon what basis would the wages of millions of workmen be determined? Could so mechanical an agency as government foresee future business conditions expertly enough to direct the productive forces of the nation effectively? If prices are no longer to be fixed by competition, how, and by means of what agency, are they to be determined?
These are only a few of the vital questions which would arise in connection with the administration of a socialist state. Various suggestions have been made with regard to some of these difficulties, but there is among socialists no general agreement as to the answer of any one of these questions. They continue to constitute, in the eyes of practical men, a grave obstacle to socialism.
156. DANGERS OF A SOCIALIST BUREAUCRACY.—Governmental power would have to be very highly centralized if a socialist state were effectively to administer the nation's economic activities as a unit. But this very concentration of power might easily result in the development of a bureaucracy. Waste and the possibility of corruption have unfortunately characterized even those governments over which the people exercise considerable control; it seems probable that the greater centralization of authority demanded by socialism would increase rather than decrease these dangers.
It is to be noted here that the socialists, who might be supposed to consider as paramount the interests of society or of the public, are the very people who are least inclined to do anything of the kind. [Footnote: This concept was suggested to me by Professor Thomas Nixon Carver of Harvard University.] Socialists look upon the state only as an agency for benefiting particular groups of individuals. The emphasis of political socialism upon class struggle, the frank admissions of the I.W.W. that they seek to suppress all but the laboring class, and the establishment by the bolshevists of a dictatorship of the proletariat, all these facts indicate that socialists seek the welfare of particular groups rather than the welfare of the general public.
But class legislation is repugnant to the principles of American democracy. We believe in government by the masses and for the masses; furthermore, we are committed to the ideal of as much individual freedom and as little governmental compulsion as is compatible with the good of both individual and community. The concept of a socialist bureaucracy, administered in the interests of particular groups, runs counter to our fundamental beliefs and ideals.
157. SOCIALISM WOULD DESTROY PERSONAL INITIATIVE.—One of the strongest arguments against socialism is that it would destroy personal initiative. Socialism runs counter to human nature by under- valuing the principle of self-interest. Economists are generally agreed that the abolition of the institution of private property would cause the ambition of the individual to slacken. In spite of its defects, it is the competitive system, with its promise of reward to the energetic and the capable, which is largely responsible for the miraculous prosperity of modern times. Men ordinarily will not undergo systematic training, perfect inventions, strive to introduce greater and greater economies into their business, or undertake the risk of initiating new enterprises, unless they are assured that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
And not only would socialism discourage ambition by abolishing private enterprise, but it might encourage inefficiency and shiftlessness. Every man would be guaranteed a job, every individual would be protected against want. It is even likely that a socialist state would undertake to rear and provide for the offspring of its citizens. Human experience indicates that this degree of paternalism would encourage laziness and increase irresponsibility.
It is sometimes said that under socialism men would work as eagerly for social esteem as they now work for financial gain. This would be a highly desirable condition, but unfortunately there is nothing in human experience to justify the hope that such a state of affairs will speedily be realized. The spread of altruism in the modern world is heartening, but no sensible person will shut his eyes to the fact that, for the immediate future at least, self-interest promises to be much more widespread than altruism. The love of gain may not be the highest motive in life, but it is better than none, and for a long time to come it will probably be the one which appeals most strongly to the average man. Socialists and non-socialists alike deplore the domination which self-interest exercises over human affairs. But whereas the non-socialist wisely tries to adapt a program of industrial reform to this hard fact, many socialists appear to believe that because the principle of self-interest often works out badly, they ought to act as though that principle did not exist.
158. SOCIALIST THEORY OF DISTRIBUTION UNSOUND.—Both socialists and non-socialists admit that poverty is an undesirable condition. But over the method of improving the condition of the poor the socialist and the non-socialist disagree. The defender of capitalism begins by pointing out that, under competitive conditions, the unskilled laborer is poor primarily because his labor is not highly productive. The socialist ignores this fact, and insists that the laborer shall receive a share of wealth which shall be adequate to his needs. As we shall have occasion to point out in the next chapter, this attitude of the socialist indicates a fundamental defect in his theory. Socialism pays more attention to who shall eat and how much shall be eaten, than it does to the more fundamental question of how food is to be produced, and how much can actually be produced. Laws may oblige an employer to give his workmen twice as much as they add to the value of his product, but though this will benefit the workmen while it lasts, such a practice would, if widely adopted, lead to industrial bankruptcy. [Footnote: It is assumed, in this section, that the productivity of the laborer is determined from the point of view of the employer. This is in accordance with the productivity theory which was discussed in Chapter IX.]
159. SOCIALIST THEORY OF VALUE UNSOUND.—Many of the defects of the socialist doctrine are traceable to the fact that it rests upon false assumptions. One of these false assumptions is that commodities have value in proportion as labor has been expended upon them. This labor theory of value has been discarded by every authoritative economist of modern times. As has been pointed out in Chapter VIII, value depends upon scarcity and utility. The soundness of the scarcity-utility theory, as well as the unsoundness of the labor theory, may be brought out with reference to three classes of goods.
First, there are commodities which have value in spite of the fact that no labor has been expended upon them. Virgin land, the gift of Nature, is the most important example. Articles of this class have value because they satisfy men's wants,i.e.have utility, and because they are scarce. Labor has nothing to do with their original value.
Second, there are commodities which have no value, even though much labor has been expended upon them. A building erected in a desert or in a wilderness is an example. Unwanted books, or paintings by unknown artists are other examples. Commodities in this class may represent a great expenditure of labor, and still have no value, first because they do not satisfy anyone's wants, and second because they are not scarce,i.e.there are not fewer of them than are wanted.
Third, articles may have a value which is out of proportion to the amount of labor expended upon them. The value of diamonds, old coins, and rare paintings is disproportionate to the actual amount of labor involved in their production. A sudden change in fashion may cause the value of clothing and other commodities to rise or fall, with little or no regard for the amount of labor expended upon them. In each case it is not labor that determines value, but scarcity and utility.
160. LABOR NOT THE ONLY FACTOR IN PRODUCTION.—Labor is an important factor in production, but land, capital, co÷rdination, and government are also of vital importance to any modern industrial community. The great error of the socialist is that he over-estimates the importance of the laborer, and minimizes or altogether denies the importance of the individuals with whom the laborer co÷perates in production. This error is explainable: the laborer does most of the visible and physical work of production, while the part played by the landowner, the capitalist, and the entrepreneur is less physical and often is apparently less direct. The complexity of the industrial mechanism very often prevents the laborer from appreciating the true relation existing between his own physical labor, and the apparently indirect and often non-physical efforts of those who co÷perate with him. It is in this connection that producers' co÷peration and bolshevism have performed a great service. They have demonstrated, by the out-and-out elimination of the managing employer, that the laborer alone cannot carry on modern industry. Such actual demonstrations of the value of factors of production other than labor are of far more service in correcting the viewpoint of the socialist than is any amount of theoretical argument.
161. THEORY OF CLASS STRUGGLE UNWARRANTED.—The theory of class struggle is based upon the claim that the laborer produces all wealth. But we have seen this claim to be unfounded; therefore the theory of class struggle is built upon an error. Ultimately, the theory of class struggle tends to injure the very class which seeks to gain by advocating it, for true and permanent prosperity for the laboring class (as well as for all other classes) can result only when all of the factors of production work together harmoniously. Fundamentally the quarrel between capital and labor [Footnote: The phrase "capital and labor" is loose and inaccurate, but is in common use. Used in this sense the word "capital" refers to the capitalist and employing classes, while the word "labor" refers to the workers. See Section 181, Chapter XVIII, for a fuller discussion.] is as suicidal as though the arms of a human body refused to co÷perate with the other members. There are, indeed, many antagonisms between capital and labor, but socialism seeks to foment, rather than to eliminate them. Socialism preaches social solidarity and prosperity for all, but by inciting the class struggle it makes for class hatred and a disharmony between capital and labor which decreases prosperity and threatens economic ruin.
162. HISTORY HAS DISPROVED SOCIALISM.—Karl Marx bases his theory of a future socialist state upon a number of predictions, none of which has come true. According to Marx, socialism was inevitable. He declared that the centralization of wealth in the hands of the capitalists, on the one hand, and the increasing misery of the workers on the other, would accentuate the class struggle and bring about the downfall of capitalism. As a matter of fact, laws are more and more restricting the undue concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. The middle classes, far from disappearing, as Marx predicted, are increasing in numbers and in wealth. The working classes are not becoming poorer and more miserable, but are securing a larger and larger share of the joint income of industry.
The socialist revolution came in 1917, not in the most enlightened country in the world, as Marx had predicted, but in Russia, one of the most backward of civilized countries. This revolution did not demonstrate the superiority of socialism over capitalism, but revealed the fundamental weaknesses of socialism, and led to a more widespread recognition of the merits of the capitalistic system.
In the progressive countries of western Europe and America, the likelihood of a socialist revolution has been greatly diminished by two developments. These developments, both of which were unforeseen by Marx, are as follows: first, the improving condition of the workers has rendered socialist doctrine less appealing; second, the increasing effectiveness of legislation designed to remedy the defects of capitalism has caused attention to be directed to legislative reform rather than to socialism. With many who were formerly socialists, the supreme question has become, not how to destroy the present order, but how to aid in perfecting it by means of appropriate legislation.
163. SOCIALISM CLAIMS TOO MUCH.—Socialism often appeals strongly to people who are unable to distinguish between plans which are realizable and promises which cannot be fulfilled. For example, socialism promises greatly to increase the productive power of the nation, to shorten the hours of labor, and to insure a just distribution of wealth. These reforms, it is claimed, would be accompanied by the elimination of unemployment, poverty, vice, and attendant evils. It is maintained that socialism would encourage a higher moral tone and a healthier and more vigorous social life than now exist.
Without doubt these are desirable aims, but we must face the hard fact that socialism is not likely to attain them.. Some of the ills which socialism claims to be able to cure are neither attributable to capitalism, nor open to remedy by socialism. For example, crises and unemployment are often due to the alternations of good and bad harvests, to the varying degrees of severity in successive winters, to new mechanical inventions, and to changes in fashion. These forces are beyond the effective control of any state. This being so, it is unfair for socialists to attribute their evil effects to capitalism. It is likewise unwarranted that socialism should claim to be able effectively to control these forces.
Other industrial evils are due to the infirmities of human nature, and to the fact that we are a highly civilized people living more and more under urban conditions. Crime, vice, and disease are grave social problems which demand solution, but it is unfair for socialism to charge these evils against capitalism. Such defects are due partly to the fact that we are human, and partly to the fact that much of modern life is highly artificial. Unless socialism contemplates a return to small, primitive communities, there is nothing to indicate that it would be able materially to reduce crime, vice, nervous strain, or ill-health. Indeed, there is no evidence to show that socialism could make as effective headway against these evils as we are making under capitalism.
164. DEFECTS OF SOCIALISM OUTWEIGH ITS MERITS.—It is only after the advantages of a system or an institution have been carefully weighed against its disadvantages that its value appears. A socialist system would have some obvious merits. It might eliminate unemployment, since everyone would be an employee of the state, and, as such, would be guaranteed against discharge. Charitable aid would probably be extended to many people now left to their own resources.
But certainly socialism could not cure ills which are due either to natural causes, or to the infirmities of human nature. The abolition of private initiative and of private property would strike at the root of progress. Socialism would also probably give rise to a series of new problems, such as the evils arising out of a bureaucratic form of government. As its program now stands, it is probably fair to say that the defects of socialism greatly outweigh its merits.
165. SOCIALISM UNDER-RATES CAPITALISM.—The ardor of the socialist often causes him to underestimate the merits of capitalism, and to exaggerate its defects. The striking achievements of capitalism, so in contrast with the negative character of socialism, are not generally appreciated by the socialist. On the other hand, the socialist places an undue emphasis upon the defects of the present system. The radical agitator too often overlooks the millions of happy, prosperous homes in this and other countries; he too often sees capitalism in terms of poverty, crises, unemployment, vice, disease, and extravagance.
Our age is not to be despaired of. An age of progress is always an age of adaptation and of adjustment, and it is precisely because American democracy is both a progressive ideal and a living, growing institution that it is confronted with problems. The socialist indictment is not a prelude to chaos, for through the process of adjustment we are making steady progress in solving our problems. Capitalism has served us well, and though it has defects, these are clearly outweighed by its merits. So long as we know of no other system which would work better, we are justified in retaining capitalism.
166. NECESSITY OF A DEFINITE PROGRAM OF INDUSTRIAL REFORM.—Socialism appeals to certain types of people because it offers a confident program, even though it is a mistaken and probably a dangerous program. And it is the almost universal failure of non-socialists to advance a substitute program that is responsible for a large share of the resentment which industrial evils have aroused among non- socialists.If not socialism, what?is the cry. We are challenged to move, to do something, to present a reform program which will justify the rejection of socialism.
Lest our survey of industrial reform seem negative and devoid of constructive elements, therefore, the next chapter will be devoted to what may be called a democratic program of industrial reform. The basic idea of this program is that poverty is as unnecessary as malaria or yellow fever, and that we can abolish poverty without sacrificing private property, personal initiative, or any of the other institutions which we hold dear.
1. What are some of the administrative difficulties which would confront a socialist state?
2. Why would socialism tend to give rise to a bureaucratic government?
3. In what way does socialism run counter to human nature?
4. In what way does the socialist differ from the non-socialist in his attitude toward the principle of self-interest?
5. In what way is the socialist theory of distribution unsound?
6. Demonstrate the unsoundness of the labor theory of value, with reference to three classes of goods.
7. How may we explain the socialist's tendency to overestimate the importance of labor, and to underestimate the value of other factors of production?
8. Explain clearly the statement that "history has disproved socialism."
9. In what way does socialism claim too much?
10. Name some industrial evils which socialism probably could not cure.
11. What is meant by the statement that "socialism under-rates capitalism"?
12. Why is it necessary for non-socialists to advance a program of industrial reform?
1. Williamson,Readings in American Democracy, chapter xvi.
Or all of the following:
2. Brasol,Socialism versus Civilization, chapter ii.
3. Bullock,Selected Readings in Economics, pages 681-705.
4. Ely,Outlines of Economics, chapter xxxi.
5. Le Rossignol,Orthodox Socialism, chapters viii and ix.
6. Skelton,Socialism, a Critical Analysis, chapter iii.
1. What is the "American conception of equality"? (Brasol, pages 75- 76.)
2. Why is the wage system a necessary feature of modern industrial life? (Brasol, page 93.)
3. What is the importance of the spirit of enterprise in increasing national wealth? (Brasol, page 99.)
4. What effect has the development of entrepreneur ability had upon the condition of the laboring classes? (Le Rossignol, pages 112-113.)
5. Could collective production be carried on in a democratic country? (Bullock, pages 682-683.)
6. Could socialism increase the productivity of the nation? (Bullock, pages 685-688.)
7. What are some of the difficulties which a socialist state would encounter in distributing wealth? (Bullock, pages 688-693.)
8. What difficulties would confront a socialist state in fixing wages? (Bullock, pages 696-705.)
9. What has been the effect of the Industrial Revolution upon the condition of the laboring classes? (Le Rossignol, pages 107-108.)
10. Explain why Marx's prediction of an increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few has not come true. (Le Rossignol, pages 128-130.)
11. To what extent is socialism too pessimistic about the present order? (Le Rossignol, page 138.)
12. To what extent does socialism overestimate industrial evils? (Skelton, page 53.)
13. What service has been rendered by socialism? (Ely, page 638.)
14. What, according to Skelton, is the fundamental error of socialism? (Skelton, pages 60-61.)
1. Make a list of a number of familiar commodities, and divide them into three classes for the purpose of testing the error of the labor theory of value, and the truth of the scarcity-utility theory. (Consult Section 159.)
2. Make a study of unemployment in your locality, with particular reference to unemployment due to
(a) climatic changes,
(b) changes in fashion,
(c) accidents, such as fire, flood or earthquake.
3. Interview an elderly friend or relative, with the purpose of securing a definite idea of the condition of the working classes a half century ago. Contrast with the condition of the laborers to-day.
4. Make a list of the notable inventions of the nineteenth century. To what extent has each increased the productivity and well-being of the various occupational groups in your community?
5. History of socialism. (Consult an encyclopedia.)
6. Varieties of socialism. (Ely,Outlines of Economics, chapter xxx.)
7. The Iron Law of wages. (Le Rossignol,Orthodox Socialism, chapter iii.)
8. The socialist's attitude toward industrial crises. (Le Rossignol,Orthodox Socialism, chapter vi.)
9. Objections to the socialist's attitude toward production. (Ely,Strength and Weakness of Socialism, part iii, chapter vi.)
10. Objections to socialism as a scheme of distribution. (Ely,Strength, and Weakness of Socialism, part iii, chapter viii.)
11. Socialism and American ideals. (Myers,Socialism and American Ideals.)
12. Social justice without socialism. (Clark,Social Justice without Socialism.)
[Footnote: The title of this chapter, as well as the material inSections 170-175, has been adapted, by permission, from the writingsand lectures of Thomas Nixon Carver, Professor of Economics in HarvardUniversity.]
167. THERE IS NO SIMPLE REMEDY FOR THE DEFECTS OF CAPITALISM.—The economic system of a modern civilized nation is a vast and complicated affair, and its defects are both numerous and deep-lying. No one really familiar with the problem would propose so simple a remedy as socialism for so complex a disease as industrial maladjustment. History affords many examples of schemes that were designed to eliminate poverty from the world suddenly and completely, but no such scheme has succeeded.
Let it be understood at the outset of this chapter, therefore, that really to eliminate the basic defects of our industrial system we must resort to a series of comprehensive reforms rather than to a single scheme or theory. These reforms must be so wisely planned and so carefully executed as to attack the evils of capitalism from a number of angles simultaneously. The attack must be partly by legislative, and partly by non-legislative methods.
The series of reforms referred to above must have three aims: first, to give every individual exactly what he earns; second, to make it possible for every individual to earn enough to support himself and his family at least decently; and third, to teach every individual to use wisely and economically the income which he receives.
A program embodying these three aims has the disadvantage of seeming commonplace and slow of fulfillment to those who prefer novel and sensational schemes, but it has the advantage of being both workable and safe.
168. THE NATURE OF JUSTICE.—Among the advocates of socialism the word "justice" is much used, but apparently little understood. Justice in industry implies that every individual shall receive precisely what he earns, no more, no less. If a monopolist secures unearned profits, there is injustice. If a laborer adds to the value of a product to the extent of five dollars, there is injustice if he receives less than five dollars in wages. Similarly, there is injustice if the laborer earns only four dollars, but receives five dollars. Wherever there is an unfair distribution of wealth, there is a double injustice: some individual gets a share of wealth which he did not earn and to which, therefore, he is not entitled; while the individual who did earn that wealth is deprived of it.
169. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS.—All right-thinking reformers will agree with the socialist that much or all of the unearned wealth of the moneyed classes ought to be taken for the benefit of the community. But he who accepts the democratic program of industrial reform will not sanction the socialist's proposal to eliminate poverty primarily by decreeing higher wages.
In the first place, this proposal of the socialist is unjust. A man who earns three dollars a day may not be able to live on that amount, and it may be desirable for some agency to give him more than three dollars a day. But that would be charity, not justice. It would be, as we have just seen, a double injustice.
In the second place, such a practice would lead inevitably to national bankruptcy. Under the competitive system, wages tend to be determined by productivity. To attempt to eradicate poverty primarily by the raising of wages is futile, for employers cannot long pay out in wages more than the laborer adds to the product. Some employers might do so for a long time, and all employers might do so for a short time, but if the practice were nation-wide and long-continued, it would result in economic ruin. To put a premium upon propagation by guaranteeing every man a job, and to pay him, not according to productivity, but according to need, would be equivalent to building up a gigantic charitable institution. Charity is a necessary and laudable function, but the proper care of the dependent classes is possible only when the majority of the people are not only self-supporting, but actually produce a surplus out of which the unfortunate can be cared for. If applicants for charity too largely outnumber those producing a surplus, national bankruptcy results.
In the third place, an increase in wages might not benefit even those receiving higher wages unless they were able and willing to spend their income wisely and economically.
170. THE REDISTRIBUTION OF UNEARNED WEALTH.—The first step in our program is to apply the principle of justice to the problem of unearned wealth. The student should be careful at this point to distinguish between wealth which has been earned, however great, and wealth which has been acquired by unjust methods. American democracy will tolerate no interference with wealth which has been earned; on the other hand, it demands that unearned riches be redistributed in the form of services performed by the government for the people as a whole.
There are three chief methods of redistributing unearned wealth. The first is by means of increased taxes on land. As was pointed out in the chapter on single tax, that income from land which is due, not to the efforts of the owner, but either to natural fertility or to the growth of the community, may be considered as unearned. While the single tax is too drastic a reform, it is unquestioned that we need heavier taxes upon the unearned increment arising from land.
A second method of redistributing unearned wealth is through the application of inheritance taxes. Reserving the whole problem of taxation for later discussion, [Footnote: See Chapter XXXII.] it may be said here that in many cases large sums are willed to individuals who have done little or nothing to deserve them. In so far as this is true, and in so far as such a tax does not discourage the activities of fortune builders, the inheritance tax is a desirable means of redistributing unearned wealth.
The last method of redistributing unearned wealth is by a tax on those elements in profits which are due to the abuse of monopoly conditions. [Footnote: Monopoly will be treated more fully in Chapters XXVII and XXVIII.] Complete monopoly rarely exists, but in many businesses there is an element of monopoly which allows the capitalist or entrepreneur to secure a measure of unearned wealth. In the interest of justice, much or all of this ought to be taken for the use of the community.
171. SOMETHING MORE THAN JUSTICE IS NECESSARY.—It is an error to suppose that justice would necessarily eliminate either low wages or poverty. As we have seen, justice would require the redistribution of a large amount of unearned wealth. But much more important is the question of large numbers of laborers whose wages are undesirably low. If the rule of justice were applied to this latter class, that is, if they were given just what they earned, many would continue to be poor. Indeed, if justice were strictly administered, it is even possible that among a few groups poverty would increase, since some individuals are incapable of really earning the wages they now receive.
Something more than justice, therefore, is necessary. We must not only see that a man gets as much as he produces, no more, no less, but we must make it possible for every individual actually to produce or earn enough to support himself decently or comfortably. This, in essence, is the distinction between the socialist and the liberalist,i.e.he who accepts the democratic program of industrial reform: the socialist would practice injustice and invite economic ruin in a vain effort to eliminate poverty; the liberalist seeks the abolition of poverty without violating either justice or economic law.
172. WHY WAGES ARE LOW.—A little thought will show that directly or indirectly poverty is sometimes the result of low wages. It follows, thus, that the source of some poverty would be dried up if an increase in wages could be secured in an economical manner. To come to the heart of the problem, wages are low because productivity is low. That is to say, employers operating under conditions of free competition will pay laborers in proportion as the latter give promise of adding to the value of the product. When men are scarce, relatively to the supply of land and capital, the employer will be justified in offering high wages, because under those circumstances the productivity of each of his prospective employees will be high. He will actually offer high wages, because if he does not, the laborers will tend to hire out to his competitors. But if laborers are plentiful, relatively to the supply of the other factors of production, the employer will be forced to offer lower wages, because under the circumstances each of the prospective employees shows promise of being able to add relatively little to the value of the product. In such a case, the employer will actually offer low wages because he need not fear that his competitors will hire all of the laborers applying for jobs.
Thus when laborers are plentiful, relatively to the demand, the automatic functioning of the law of supply and demand will result in low wages. We need not waste time debating whether or not there ought to be such a thing as the law of supply and demand; a far more profitable exercise is to recognize that such a law exists, and to consider how our program of industrial reform may be adapted to it.
173. AN ECONOMICAL REMEDY FOR LOW WAGES.—Low wages are generally the result of low productivity, and low productivity is in turn the result of an oversupply of laborers relatively to the demand. Granting the truth of these premises, an economical remedy for low wages involves two steps: first, the demand for labor [Footnote: By "labor" is here meant those types of labor which are poorly paid, because oversupplied. Unskilled day labor is an example.] must be increased; and second, the supply of labor must be decreased. Any measure which will increase the demand for labor, relatively to the demand for the other factors of production, will increase the productivity of labor, and will justify the payment of higher wages. Competition between prospective employers will then actually force the payment of higher wages. Similarly, any measure which will decrease the supply of labor will strengthen the bargaining position of the laborer, and, other things remaining equal, will automatically increase wages.
174. INCREASING THE DEMAND FOR LABOR.—If we bear in mind that modern industry requires a combination of the various factors of production, it will be seen that the utilization of laborers depends upon the extent to which land, capital, and entrepreneur ability are present to combine with those laborers. Where there is a large supply of these factors, many laborers can be set to work. Thus one way of increasing the demand for labor is to increase the supply of land, capital, and entrepreneur ability.
The available supply of land can be increased by several methods. Irrigation, reclamation, and dry farming increase the available supply of farm land. The fertility of land may be retained and increased by manuring, rotation of crops, and careful husbandry. Improved agricultural machinery will also enable land to be used in larger quantities and in more productive ways. And while we do not think of man as actually creating land, the draining of swamps and the filling in of low places increases the available amount of both farm and urban land. By whatever means the amount of available land is increased, the effect is to open more avenues to the employment of laborers.
The supply of capital may be increased chiefly by the practice of thrift among all classes of the population. Capital arises most rapidly when individuals produce as much as possible, and spend as little as possible for consumers' goods. Any measure which will discourage the well-to-do from wasteful or luxurious ways of living, and at the same time encourage the poor to save systematically, even though they save only a trifle, will add to the supply of available capital. Every increase in the supply of capital will enable more and more laborers to be set to work.
Entrepreneur ability may be increased by a variety of methods. The training of men for business callings increases the supply of entrepreneurs. Taxes on inheritances, excess profits, and the unearned increment of land will tend to force into productive work many capable men who now either idle away their lives, or retire from business prematurely. It is also important that the well-to-do classes be encouraged to rear larger families, since it is these classes which can best afford to give their children the higher forms of training and education. Lastly, it is desirable to teach that leisure is disgraceful, and that whether one is rich or poor, the useful and productive life is the moral and patriotic life. "He who does less well than he can does ill."
175. DECREASING THE SUPPLY OF LABOR.—Hand in hand with measures deigned to increase the demand for labor should go consistent efforts to decrease the supply of unskilled and poorly paid labor. One of the most effective means of accomplishing this is to restrict by law the immigration to this country of masses of unskilled workers which glut the American labor market and force down the wages of unskilled workmen already here. The general problem of immigration will be discussed elsewhere; here it is only necessary to note that as an economic proposition unrestricted immigration is undesirable.
The supply of unskilled labor may be somewhat restricted by additional laws. It is clear that we ought to pass and enforce laws which would prevent the propagation of mental defectives. There ought also to be laws which would discourage the marriage of individuals who show no promise of being able to rear and support children who are physically fit. It might not be expedient to pass legislation requiring a certain minimum income of persons intending to marry, but from the purely economic point of view, such laws would certainly be advisable.
Much in this general field can be done by non-legislative methods. Young people can be taught the desirability of postponing marriage until their earnings justify the acceptance of such a responsibility. Just as the well-to-do should be encouraged to prefer family-building to social ambition, so the poorer classes ought to be encouraged to postpone marriage until, through education or training, the proper support of a family is assured. This end must be secured through moral and social education, rather than through legislation.
The encouragement of thrift among the poorer classes of the population is an important factor in decreasing the supply of unskilled labor. Thrift increases savings, and by making possible education or apprenticeship in a trade, it enables the children of the unskilled worker to pass from the ranks of the poorly paid to the ranks of the relatively well paid. Thus not only does the practice of thrift by the poor add to the amount of capital in existence, and thus indirectly increase the demand for labor, but it helps the poor directly and immediately.
Vocational education is of fundamental importance in decreasing the supply of unskilled labor. It renders higher wages economically justified by training individuals away from overcrowded and hence poorly paid jobs, and toward those positions in which men are scarce, and hence highly paid. If vocational education turns unskilled workmen into entrepreneurs, such education has the doubly beneficial effect of lessening the supply of unskilled labor, and of increasing the demand for labor. The importance of trade schools, continuation schools, and other agencies of vocational education can hardly be exaggerated.
Employment bureaus and labor exchanges are essential to the democratic program of industrial reform. Just as vocational education must move individuals from overcrowded to undercrowded occupations, so the employment bureau should move laborers from places where they are relatively little wanted, and hence poorly paid, to places where they are relatively much wanted, and hence better paid. A co÷rdinated system of national, state, and municipal employment bureaus is a valuable part of our program of industrial reform.
176. IMPORTANCE OF PERSONAL EFFICIENCY.—We have seen that the bargaining position of the laborer may be strengthened by any and all measures which would increase the demand for his labor, relatively to the demand for the other factors of production. As a general proposition, this strengthened position would tend automatically to result in higher wages.
Along with these measures it should not be forgotten that the industrial position of the individual worker tends to improve in proportion as he increases his personal efficiency. It is of the greatest importance that the individual should strive to secure as thorough an education as possible, and that he safeguard himself against accident and disease. He should realize, also, that employers seek men who are not only competent, but whose personal habits are attractive and trust-inspiring. Regardless of the scarcity or oversupply of labor, personal efficiency will tend to enable the worker to receive larger wages than would otherwise be possible.
177. SOMETHING MORE THAN HIGH WAGES IS NECESSARY.—We have taken some time to point out how wages might be increased without violating economic law. But high wages do not necessarily mean the abolition of poverty, indeed, actual investigations have proved that often poverty exists regardless of whether wages are high or low. A family of four, for example, might be well fed, comfortably clothed, and otherwise cared for in a normal manner, on, say, three dollars a day, provided that sum were utilized wisely. A second family of equal size, however, might spend six dollars a day so carelessly that the children would be denied such vital necessities as medical attention and elementary education, while neither parents nor children would be adequately provided with food or clothing.
178. INCOME MUST BE UTILIZED WISELY.—Thus an indispensable factor in the abolition of poverty is the economical utilization of income. Aside from the fact that it increases the amount of capital in existence, thrift is imperative if a family is to get the full benefit of its income. In both the home and the school the child should be taught the proper care and utilization of money. He should receive, in addition, fundamental instruction in such matters as expense- accounting and budget-making. Of similarly great value is the training of boys and girls to a proper appreciation of the home-making ideal, to which subject we shall return later. [Footnote: See Chapter XXIII.]
It is fortunate that we are directing more and more attention to these and similar measures, for they strike at the heart of one of the great causes of poverty—the inability of the individual to make the proper use of his income. Unless our citizens are trained to spend money wisely, and to distinguish clearly between the relative values of services and commodities, an increase in wages will never eliminate malnutrition, illiteracy, and other elements of poverty.
179. SUMMARY.—For the sake of clearness, let us summarize the essential features of the democratic program of industrial reform.
The first aim of this program is to give every individual precisely what he earns, no more, no less. Applying the principle of justice would result in heavy taxes on unearned wealth secured through inheritance, or as rent from land, or as monopoly profits.
The second aim of our program arises from the fact that justice might not improve the condition of the laboring class, since some laborers manifestly could not earn enough to support themselves and their families decently.
In addition to administering justice, therefore, we must put the individual in a position to earn an amount adequate to his needs. This involves two lines of action: first, the bargaining position of the laborer must be strengthened by measures designed to increase the demand for his labor, relatively to the demand for the other factors of production; second, increasing the personal efficiency of the worker will render him more attractive to the employer.
The third aim of the democratic program of industrial reform is to teach the individual to use his income wisely and economically. Only after this has been done can we be assured that the raising of wages will materially improve the condition of the worker.
180. SOCIAL PROBLEMS.—There is an important word to be said here. The democratic program of industrial reform is economically sound, and ultimately it would eliminate poverty. But it is not an immediate cure for all of the social and economic ills of American democracy. There will long continue to be persons whom no amount of care can render capable of earning enough to support themselves. There are many other individuals who may ultimately become self-supporting, but who for some time to come will need special care and attention. There are, lastly, many other individuals who are partially or entirely self- supporting,—women and children, for example,—but whose social and economic interests need to be safeguarded by legislation. The democratic program of industrial reform could ultimately eliminate many of the basic social problems now confronting us; meantime we are under the necessity of grappling with such questions as labor disputes, the risks of industry, crime, and dependency. Indeed, no matter how vigorously and intelligently we attack the defects of capitalism, it is probable that we shall always have to face grave social problems. Part III of the text will accordingly be devoted to a consideration of American social problems.
1. Why is there no simple remedy for the defects of capitalism?
2. What are the three aims of the program advanced in this chapter?
3. What is the nature of justice?
4. In what sense is an unfair distribution of wealth a double injustice?
5. Under what conditions would the raising of wages tend to result in national bankruptcy?
6. What are the three chief methods of redistributing unearned wealth?
7. Why does the elimination of poverty demand something more than justice?
8. What is the fundamental cause of low wages? Explain clearly.
9. What is an economical remedy for low wages?
10. Why will higher wages result from an increase in the demand for labor?
11. By what three methods may the demand for labor be increased?
12. Name some of the methods whereby the supply of labor may be decreased.
13. What is the importance of personal efficiency in our program?
14. What is the relation of wages to poverty?
15. What is the importance of an economical utilization of income?
16. Summarize the argument in this chapter.
17. Why is the program outlined not an immediate panacea for all social and economic ills?
1. Williamson,Readings in American Democracy, chapter xvii. Or all of the following:
2. Carver,Elementary Economics, chapters xiv, xxix, xxxi, and xivii.
3. Carver,Essays in Social Justice, chapter i.
1. Why does the need for justice arise? (Essays, page 3.)
2. What is the first duty of the state? (Essays, page 9.)
3. What is moral law? (Essays, page 23.)
4. What is the relation of meekness to national strength? (Essays, pages 33-34.)
5. What is meant by a "balanced nation"? (Elementary Economics, pages 118-119.)
6. What is the aim of balancing a population? (Elementary Economics, page 119.)
7. Name an important method of securing this balance. (Elementary Economics, pages 119-120.)
8. What classes of the population multiply the least rapidly? Why is this undesirable? (Elementary Economics, page 120.)
9. What is the object of the "geographical redistribution of population"? (Elementary Economics, page 120.)
10. Explain the working of the "law of variable proportions" in industry. (Elementary Economics, pages 258-260.)
11. Why are there differences of wages in different occupations? (Elementary Economics, page 268.)
12. What is the "law of population"? (Elementary Economics, page 273.)
13. What is the effect of immigration upon wages? (Elementary Economics, pages 273-274.)
14. What are the two ways of getting men to do what is necessary for the prosperity of the nation? Of these two ways, which is preferable? (Elementary Economics, pages 387-388.)
15. What are the dangers of freedom? (Elementary Economics, pages 389-390.)
1. Make a study of the occupational groups in your locality for the purpose of discovering which of these groups receive the lowest wages. Can you connect the fact that they receive low wages with their numerical strength?
2. Is the supply of unskilled labor in your community affected by European immigration? If so, attempt to trace the relation of this immigration to low wages in your community.