The daily Nome industrial worker., 1917-12-22
KILLING INCENTIVE.

\ great m&ny unt5lnkln8 p2Op'C assert th2t if q Socialist form of govcr&ment were established in tt..s country. the incentive of men to work herd would disappear. They conto.d that unless man IS compel led, driven. by the whip of neccs- .sity, by .he l.sh of poverty, Ee will not perform any labor beycl what is needed to sat..fy his most Drimi. tive needs. This appare. tiy super icial criticism of Socialism seems 10 b@ very prevalent in the United States, and .s considered by our op- ponent3 to bc the most fatal objec- ton to that philosophy.
 Let us canGidly and without pre- jud:cc. pick this argument to pieces.
 It is primarily inferred from the objection that Socialism implies equality of income. Such, however, is not the case. The SocialiG. party latfCrm says mothing concerning that. otEcr than &n abstract 2!lu- sion to the effect t2at each one u%Acr a Socialist form of govern ncnt receiving his full social pro drct Undoubtedly, men who per form dis; grccablc tasks will receive a better income than t:.osc that are engaged ill more pleasant tasks. A man ;ha, Mltully shi.ks L.s duty. VII, in .u probability. have his in come decreased While we do not sul scribe to any theory of equality of income, We aIc emphatic@lly 0p- | Iosed to the idea Of p&yiHg the man ger of r;ilgoad @I00,000 a year, .!lile the man w!.C lays the raj receives between $500 to 5000 a wear. To man who sacrifices con tinually for the advantage of the collcct;vity, enough more Of an in- come would be given him than the average to show that his services were appreciated by the people. For instance, if conductor on q railro: d received $1,000 year. it might be well to pay between $3,- 00G or 5000 tC the manager. l; st2te corfiscation of all large inhe- rit;accs wee simultaneously est. b. 1:shed, the abuses which might po3s- lhly arise from even such small difference in remuneration as l have cited. could largely be obviated This simple explanation will expose the buGaboo of "i2c,HtiYc dc troy CTS" hurled at us by aati-Socialists.
 Then aga.n, what Incentives have we today for men to excel? The great mass of the working class which produces practically all of the worlds wealth, receive an income below $750 year, and yet. men are always found wEo are willing to Go inc worlds work, and do it well. Almost all the men who receive waRcs not exceeding $500 a year, gre willing to work year out. The greatest number Of the idle rich re- -- e>iVe fabulous incomes and do noth- ing to merit it.
 Al the present time, tEc great Torticl. of the product of labor goes to a privileged class in the form o rent, interest and profit, This class with very few exceptions earn nohe oi th's wealth. Nov dc our opponents mean to assert that it is aE incentive for a laborer to produce, to watch leisure class consume his product? And yet that l. precisely what IS implied when il is contc2ded thot the pre- seat ryt1cm induces men to work L-aartcr. ..
 NISrrv Ford says that tine more vou give man for lis laDor, th1 harder be will strive to earn 1t. IT ais experiments with proht-sAarht ne found tina. since :he wages 0 his men he'd been greatly increased the total production of automohi'e mad almcs; beCn doGbled.
 For my part, l believe that tn ultimate ideal will be equality 0 income. Even with this, thcr would not be serious decrease Il the tatal production ot wealth Howeve% men gre so accustome to working under the eXceedingl low wage. that sudden change i ,he system cf rewardihg men fo 4nc;r labo. would result in chaos . , ,nottar or fact the great mas