1880.] on Social Democracy in Germany. 415 



day, himself admits that there is a difference between the work of 

 man and that of a bee. "Man," he says, "does not only transform 

 matter, but ho transforms his design, which he comj)rehcnds, which 

 determines tho mode and method of his action, as a law, to which 

 his will must be subordinate." Putting this in a less abstract or 

 Hegelian form, what Marx admits, is that skill is all important in 

 human labour. Hence the difficulty of equal remuneration for that 

 reason, also on account of another test : the usefulness of labour. 

 The same article may be useful on the 1st of March, and perfectly 

 useless on the 1st of April. 



On the other hand, the extremely complicated question of taxation 

 in our present condition, and certainly in the present condition of 

 Germany, vanishes. As the Government of the world has in its 

 own warehouses every possible product, from torpedoes to oatmeal, 

 whatever the Government needs has simply to be taken out of them. 

 It becomes only a matter of book-keeping. Whether the citizen 

 should bear his proportion in this taxation relatively to his earned 

 labour-checks, or whether it should be an absolute deduction, is an 

 open but also a test question. If it is the duty of every citizen to the 

 State to supply an equal amount of labour, there is no better way 

 of punishing those who do not come up to the maximum than by 

 deducting from their labour-checks the same amount that you 

 deduct from those who have earned the maximum, leaving the latter 

 with a larger share of what remained. To this question, therefore, 

 we should have a clear answer, because it would spread a flood of 

 light on the character of socialism. If the same amount of taxation 

 is to be paid by every citizen, we have virtually the forced labour 

 system of the old Indian community, with or without the lash. 



The inheritance of the citizens is limited to labour-checks and 

 means of enjoyment, but with these independent family life is perfectly 

 conceivable. The question what kinds of production the State must 

 undertake will be of the utmost importance on account of the im- 

 possibility, through the absence of private capital, of providing for 

 individual needs, and any provision made by the public distributive 

 department for needs, which are not general, must inevitably raise 

 discontent. Supposing the State starts a Royal Institution, a hippo- 

 drome, an aquarium, or an organ, it is obvious that all the citizens 

 who live far off and who do not want in exchange for labour-checks to 

 be informed about Marcus Aurelius, to hear the State organ, to see 

 the State gorilla, or to enjoy the feats of the State clown, will feel 

 aggrieved. If it is left to a combination of private individuals to 

 start hippodromes and music halls as private ventures, then these 

 individuals are pro tanto withdrawn from the collective production of 

 useful things to the production of useless things, and their support 

 by the transfer of the labour-checks of their fellow citizens lessens 

 in proportion the means of useful enjoyment of the community and 

 the quantity of useful things produced by the State. 



Another difficulty presents itself. If private individuals are 



