their reasonable needs ! " Both of the 

 ideals have been ably demonstrated by 

 Dr. Schaffle to be Utopian, and impos- 

 sible of achievement, as amongst other 

 things they altogether fail to cover the 

 circumstances requiring provision for the 

 unity of the family with its sacred ties ; 

 the care of the young, the aged, the sick 

 or crippled who are unable to work, and 

 requiring also adequate provision for 

 dealing with the idle, the dissolute and 

 criminal, who have no desire to perform 

 work of any social value. 



UTOPIAN SCHEMES OF SOCIALISTS. 



It is not a matter of surprise that the 

 mass of struggling wage-earners should 

 so readily sympathise with any vague 

 Utopian scheme of the Socialist, which, 

 however faulty, holds out some promise 

 or plan for dealing more effectually with 

 the difficulties which affect them most 

 nearly, viz., security of employment ; 

 protection from over competition ; 

 shorter hours labor, with more adequate 

 remuneration ; redistribution of wealth ; 

 old age pensions, etc., etc. 



But it is needless to point out that 

 before redistribution on the basis of 

 equality, of the aggregate of all forms of 

 wealth in exchange, can be considered, 

 it must be clear that this wealth consists 

 of such forms as might effectually satisfy 

 all the primary wants and comforts of 

 human beings. That existing wealth in 

 exchange, even if equally distributed, 

 would fulfil this most desirable end, is a 

 pure assumption. 



It has already been shown that a great 

 part of the existing nominal wealth in ex- 

 change largely appropriated by the private 

 capitalists — consists of the mere tools and 

 instimments of production, and that the 

 real wealth, appropriated as consumable 

 wealth or primary satisfactions, is already 

 more widely and evenly distributed than 

 is generally supposed. Even under the 

 most thorough Socialistic scheme this 

 form of wealth would be far less gener- 

 ally distributed than at present ; for, ac- 

 cording to such a scheme, it would be 

 wholly reserved in the hands of the Ex- 

 ecutive Government. It is utterly 

 misleading to reckon upon the existing 

 wealth of capitalists instruments of pro- 

 duction as a source of raismg the quota 

 of the real consumable and primary 

 satisfactions. The only distribution 

 possible in this respect would be the 



131 



18 



empty idea of part ownership. It is the 

 increase to necessary current productiona 

 designed fo?' actual eo/uui/qjtion — materi«l 

 satisfactions — which alone can raise the 

 average standard of primary satisfac- 

 tions, and so dispose of material want, 

 or poverty and distress. The ques- 

 tion therefore arises :— Suppose that 

 such a scheme were practicable, would 

 the producing energies of men 

 be greater and more effective than 

 under the Scheme of Competition, Liberty, 

 Right of Inheritance, Property Right, or 

 Individualism, as it is called ? To be 

 more effective in one essential it must 

 utterly fail in the other. The workers 

 must be trained and allocated to specific 

 occupations in strict conformity to the 

 amount and nature of the labor actually 

 required to produce the primary satis- 

 factions and comforts desired. Training 

 for every specific occupation requires con- 

 siderable time ; but for the occupations of 

 skill a large amount of time must be con- 

 sumed in acquiring the necessary training, 

 irrespective of questions withjregard to the 

 unequal distribution of capacity. 



Now on the basis of equality it may be 

 easy to divide products ; that, according 

 to actual needs is simple enough, in- 

 volving no insuperable difficulty. But 

 whit about the allocation to different 

 employments ? How can the easy, the 

 refined, and the skilled occupations be 

 allocated on any scheme of equality ? 

 The majority must, as heretofore, sweat 

 at the hard and dirty forms of labor. But 

 what power, or what plan can be devieed 

 which will enable any elective executive 

 to doom once and for ever the majority of 

 learners and workers to the hard and irk- 

 some occupations, and to fix the minority 

 in the refined, the easy, and skilled ser- 

 vices ? 



Suppose it were for a time instituted 

 how long would the unfortunate majority 

 be content to submit to their lot 

 before an irresistible cry for re- 

 d'f.str'ihution of occupation if arose ; and" if 

 it arose, where is the force stronger than 

 the majority of freemen to prevent the 

 breakdown of the social organisation 

 necessary to produce the supply of pri- 

 mary satisfactions according to individual 

 needs ? What compensation can be 

 given to the masses toiling in the more 

 wearisome occupations ? Extra allow- 

 ance of satisfactions cannot be thought of, 



