of workers today are on salary; and on the whole they
probably work as faithfully as the few at the top
(continually becoming fewer) who have the spur of
private profit.[Footnote: 1 Cf. this testimony
in regard to former owners of stores in Minnesota
and Wisconsin who have been bought out and retained
as managers by cooperative societies: “they
work for moderate salaries, and in almost all cases
are working as ardently for success as they ever did
for their own gain.” N. O. Nelson, in Outlook,
vol. 89, p. 527.] Not all capitalists are hard workers;
much of the real work is done for them by salaried
managers. It is very questionable if doctors
and lawyers, who work for profits, give any more loyal
service to the community than teachers, ministers,
or nurses, who work on salary. There would still
be the need of earning one’s living, and the
incentive of rising to positions of higher salary,
greater authority, and wider interest. And, after
all, most of the really good work of the world is
done on honor, from the normal human pleasure in doing
things well, and pride in being known to do things
well. When freed from the private greed and antisocial
class feelings which now inhibit it, this zest in
efficient work and loyal service might receive a new
impetus. A socialistic regime would surely make
a business of inculcating in its public schools the
conception of all work as public service; and the
pressure of public opinion would bear more heavily
upon workers-as there is today much freer criticism
of public than of private undertakings. But even
if there should be a considerable increase in slackness
and a decrease in
per capita production,
that economic loss might be more than made up by the
saving of labor through organization. And if
not, it is true that efficiency is not the only good.
Considerations of humanity should weigh with us as
well as considerations of moneymaking; if socialism
can cure the intolerable evils in our present selfish
and chaotic system, a certain decrease in production
might not be too great a price to pay.
(2) The running of the complicated socialistic machine
would involve a great deal of friction, with consequent
dissatisfaction and dissension. Problems would
arise on all hands: On what basis should the wage-rate
in this industry and in that be determined? How
much of the public moneys should be put into this
and how much into that undertaking? Was this
department head fair in discharging this man and promoting
that man? Suspicion of bribery and graft would
continually recur. Bad seasons would be encountered,
blunders would be made, overproduction would occur,
men would be thrown out of employment in the work they
had chosen, floods, fires, plagues, and other disasters
would sweep away profits; the adjustment of these
losses would be an enormously delicate matter.
At present, the poor are apt to feel that prosperity
for them is hopeless; under a socialistic regime they
would expect it, and be loath to see their incomes
diminished when things went wrong. Socialism
would require a great deal of good temper and willingness
to submit to decisions which seemed unwise or unfair.
It is highly doubtful if human nature is yet good enough
to fit the system.