CORRESP ONBENCE. 



701 



i^QXXts^t^wiitwtt^ 



COMPETITION AND SOCIALISM. 



Editor Popular Science MontMy : 



DEAR SIR : In reading over your June 

 magazine this morning I came upon 

 your very able essay on Competition and the 

 Golden Rule. I am very much impressed with 

 its general fairness as well as its penetration, 

 but particularly with the opening paragraph 

 on those advocates of socialism who teach 

 that competition is a negation of the golden 

 rule. 



I feel that I ought to admit you are 

 justified in treating all socialists as if they 

 were enemies of competition ; and I grow 

 quite disgruntled myself with those of my 

 fellow-advocates who are continually de- 

 nouncing competition in the way you have 

 described. I am quite willing to confess 

 that if any further arguments were needed 

 in defense of competition, your article sup- 

 plies them ; and that true competition — i. e., 

 between the individual faculties and energies 

 of individuals — is an element of life itself, 

 which no institution, even were it desired, 

 could for any extended period wipe away. 



But what I should like to call your atten- 

 tion to, if kindly permitted, is that modern 

 socialism (the replacing of privately owned 

 capital by socially owned, or functional, capi- 

 tal in the production and distribution of 

 wealth) does not involve a negation of com- 

 petition. You are, of course, familiar with 

 the general expression of the object of so- 

 cialism, " To every man according to his 

 deed." If every man is to be rewarded " ac- 

 cording to his deed," it is possible only by 

 observing the competitive attainments of 

 each and all. 



But it may be said that that is a mere 

 banner declaration, and that we must look to 

 the necessary workings of the socialistic sys- 

 tem in order to determine its regard for com- 

 petition. Admitted. 



Now, as I have been able to understand 

 the necessary effect of the " replacement of 

 private by social capital," its only conse- 

 quence as to competition would be in elimi- 

 nating such competition as between the 

 units of capital, or dollar and dollar ; for 

 example, to such competition as we now see 

 going on between the different bodies of 

 capital — as in parallel railroads, the multi- 

 tude of stores, etc. In the interest of a 

 sound political economy it is, indeed, desired 

 that this prodigious waste of both capital 

 and individual energy, arising from the an- 

 archy of private capital, should be stopped. 

 That is, the two railroads should not be laid 

 where one might meet the needs of society, 

 etc. ; but that the utmost economy of capital 



should be insisted on in modern society, 

 where the absolute interdependence of our 

 lives makes the present waste (about fifty 

 per cent of our capital and labor) a terrible 

 tax upon all. 



While, therefore, competition between 

 bodies of capital when engaged in organized 

 production or distribution is in fact sought 

 to be eliminated because of its terrible ex- 

 pense, this consequence in no way follows as 

 to the vastly more important human con- 

 stituents of the system. " To every man 

 according to his deed " will mean, with im- 

 portant modifications, the same wage system 

 we now have and the same relative ratio of 

 service with reward. We believe — we think 

 we know — that wages will double or treble 

 under the elimination of rent, interest, and 

 profit, and that other monster with no de- 

 fenders — waste ; that an Edison and many 

 others will make immensely more money, 

 according to their deed, than their poorly 

 equipped moral, mental, or physical com- 

 petitors. But at the same time that every 

 man's possessions will be limited to his ac- 

 tual wages, it is fairly expected that his in- 

 fluence and power in the government of the 

 world will be similarly limited to the meas- 

 ure of his character, his moral and mental 

 means. 



It must be admitted that communism 

 does imply a total negation of competition, 

 according to its maxim, " To every man ac- 

 cording to his need, from every man accord- 

 ing to his power." But it is too late in the 

 nineteenth century for intelligent men to 

 confound two systems not alike even in their 

 moral aspirations, much less in their econom- 

 ic pi'oposals. Socialism is to-day as much a 

 science as definition and precision of state- 

 ment can make any character of institutions. 

 It teaches that a system of industry, which 

 is in fact collective in its dependence and 

 interdependence of parts, should be collect- 

 ive in its responsibilities, collective in its 

 powers, and collective in the distribution of 

 its benefits. These ends can be secured only 

 by the same social ownershp of the system 

 of industry which the people of this country 

 have long ago inaugurated as to their gov- 

 ernment itself. They own that government 

 in theory, at least, body, root, and branch. 

 In fact, their reasoning in behalf of repub- 

 lican institutions is identical with ours in 

 favor of a democratic system of industry. 

 The only difference in the transition from 

 privately owned governments (aristocracies 

 and monarchies) to democratic governments, 

 and that of private capital to social capital, 

 is that the former must antedate. The prin- 

 ciple is identical. The object is the same, 



