17 



A careful study of this table shows 

 that, so far from the capitalist class being 

 enriched at the expense of the wage- 

 earner, the very opposite is the truth ; 

 for instead of a reward being allotted in 

 proportion to his share of physical 

 energy contributed, it has been increased 

 fully 100 per cent. ; physical energy 

 expended being only 30*70 per cent., 

 while his share of rewards represents 

 67-26 per cent. 



This improvement of his position is 

 solely due to the fact that the more 

 economic physical agent engaged 

 in production only absorbs 19 80 per 

 cent, of the consumable wealth, while its 

 share of the necessary energy engaged in 

 production amounts to 6667 per cent., or 

 two thirds, at least, of all physical forces 

 (human or other) engaged in the pro- 

 duction of the year's necessary wants and 

 satisfactions. It is true the private 

 capitalist receives, relatively, a larger 

 in iivklual share of the capitalist's own 

 machine production ; but it is impossible 

 for him to personally absorb more than 

 about three times the amount of the 

 average breadwinner. The higher the 

 percentage of energy, contributed, use- 

 fully, by the capitalist's machines in- 

 volves, of neeessity, a corresponding 

 greater bonus reward to the ordinary 

 breadwinner, while the proportion going 

 to the capitalist, as such, must by a like 

 necessity, remain almost stationary in 

 comparison. 



It cannot be too strongly asserted, 

 therefore, that the greatly increased 

 reward of the laborer of the present day 

 in civilised countries is mainly due to the 

 increasing command which during the 

 last century man has obtained over the 

 forces of Nature. 



Steam, electricity, and the ever-increas- 

 ing improvements in labor-saving machi- 

 nery has multiplied the effective force of 

 man's mere muscular power in the pro- 

 duction, transport, and manufacture of 

 necessaries and satisfactions, three to 

 four, and, in some cases, many hundred- 

 fold. In proportion as these auxiliaries 

 have increased as aids in the production 

 of any one necessary service or commo- 

 dity, the amount of physical human labor 

 engaged has decreased individually, while 

 the real reward of labor ha<4 on the average 

 increased by about 50 per cent. Nothing 

 can be more conclusive than that it is to 



the consequent liberation of the proportion 

 of labor, formerly necessary to produce the 

 barest primary essentials of life, that we 

 are indebted now for the vast category of 

 new comforts and satisfaction, the attain- 

 ment of whicn was utterly impossible to 

 the mass of human beings, when the 

 production of food alone — the great 

 primary industry — absorbed nearly the 

 whole of man's muscular efforts and his 

 time. 



EXISTING DISTRIBUTION 0¥ SHARE OF PRO- 

 DUCTS AND SERVICES REGARDED FROM 

 THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST POINT OF 

 VIEW. 



Having thus attempted to clear away 

 some of the confusion so frequently intro- 

 duced in discussions bearing upon wealth 

 and its distribution under the existing 

 democratic individualistic or wage system 

 form of modern society, we come now to 

 consider how far the distribution of con- 

 sumable wealth (i.e., the annual aggre- 

 gate of products and services) departs 

 from the ideals of division or appropria- 

 tion desired by the leaders of the com- 

 munistic or collectivist form of socialism. 



It is difficult to trace any clearly de- 

 fined positive programme among the 

 average persons who espouse the adoption 

 of any of the forms of communist 

 socialism, or collectivism, as it is now 

 frequently termed. We may here dismiss 

 from our view the more extremely 

 visionary, or impossible, forms of com- 

 munistic ideals, and restrict our attention 

 to the first of the two most notable sec- 

 tions, viz., the " Eisenach " and " Gotha 

 programmes. The one, the " Eisenach ' 

 programme of 1869 — according to the 

 learned authority, Dr. Schaffle — de- 

 manded on the basis of national owner- 

 ship of aU the means of production that 

 each workman should have secured to him 

 " the full product of his labor " in the 

 counter-value which accrues to him. 

 This was the collectivism of an accurate 

 apportionment of income and enjoyment 

 according to work performed. But as 

 early as 1875, in the "Gotha" pro- 

 gramme, there came to the front the col- 

 lectivism of apportionment according 

 to need, on the basis of an equal 

 and universal obligation to work, that 

 is to say, pure collectivism : for this 

 demand was literally formulated for 

 "universal obligation to work, and the 

 equal right of all to the satisfaction of 



