Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1889-07-13
COMMUNICATIONS.

and more intelligently formulating the
other parts SO as to read: The basis
of cooperative society STIMULATES, etc,
etc, cooperative production amt gltQrdl-
tee Of d share IN the product in uccord-
dHce rth the Serrice rendered by the midi
rdlta} to society,""
Having fully shown, as l believe,
that on the one hand the difference be
tween the old and the new platform is
only apparent, but not real; and, on
the other hand, that the new version is
the preferable one on account of its
greater clearness and directness, let me
| now turn to the rest of Comrade Stahls
criticism. He asks; as it possible to
guarantee to each the result Of his ID
bOrS r That is not fair question, be-
cause the platform does not propose to
| reckon out in 50 many dollars and
| cents, Just what the value created by
| the individuals would be; but, as it
| clearly states, 1t means TO guarantee to
| each one his share in the product of
co Operdtlre idbOr prOpOrt1OHte to the
| amount of labor that each one contrib
utes Karl Marx devotes a considerable
portion of his "CapitaI to find and
define the formula for the computation
of the price and value of labor as ap-
piled to various kinds of production,
and it would be certainly as easy to cal,
culate thereby each individuals proper
tiOnate share in the common product of
cooperative labor as it is now for cap
italist stakeholder in any business or
partner in any private enterprise to cal
culate his share in the net profits of the
concern. In a cooperative common
wealth, the various industrial branches
in any one department would settle be-
tween themselves the proportionate
share of each branch in the sum total
produced blythe whole department, and
each branch on its part would dust
the claims of its individual members
according to the prOpOrtiOnate amount
of labor which each one has contributed
to the total labor of the whole branch.
On such plan beng justly carried out,
there can be no fear Of any injustice
done to any one worker less gifted than
his fellow worker, because every one who
conscientiously and to the best of his
ability would work given number of
hours would be entitled to the same
compensation as any other worker IN
the same branch and for the same time,
even if the amount produced by the
latter should excel that produced by
the former. The criterion will not be
the amount of each ones production,
but the Average amount of necessarily
applied ldb0r on the part of each mem
Der within his industrial branch. The
natural consequence of such a plan
would be that he that works, he only
shall eat, and that is truly SOCialistic.
Of course Socialists do by no means in
tend TO abolish charity but on the con-
trary, to ennoble it and exercise it
only where it will prove to be veritable
relief, not an improvident waste. Able
bodied yet self constituted idlers will be
left to starve in Socialist state, and
rightly so. 1t is mistake to assume
that socialism proposes to abolish indi-
vidualism; it merely undertakes to take
away from individualism its sting
whereby it endangers society, i, e.,
selhshness. That element of individual
ism, however, and that, too, its principal
one, which calls forth a peaceful rivalry
between the best faculties of one man
and another, which stimulates competi-
ton among all the nobler qualities in
mankind, and lies at the basis of all
progress and civilization-this element,
| maintain, Is certainly not to be done
away with by Socialism, but on the
contrary, it is to be intensified purified,
and called into play for the benefit of
all, instead of that of few, as at
present.
1t is surely more difficult to establish
the measure of the needs of the individ-
ual, whatever that may mean, than his
proportionate share in the social prod
uct, apart from the inherent injustice to
which the former apportionment would
tend az against the latter. True enough,
in perfect Socialistic state, where not
only all opportunities will be equal for
all, but every one will have awaited
himself of these same opportunities,
then, no doubt, will the difference be-
tween the measure of ones deeds and
that of his needs hardly exist, and thus
discussion like this would become en-
tirely futile and useless But for So
cialists of to-day to embody in their
platform postulate that will first ripen
when the Cooperative Commonwealth
will celebrate its centennial would be
the height of absurdity With all due
Difference to Bebel and Bethany. |
think the version of the platform in
question answers Its purpose fully,
and we ought to let good enough alone.
A. ROSENBERG.