giving an equal share to each family, and when inequality in possessions supervened, another division was made. But it must be noticed that in those ancient times the principal item of wealth was land. To-day land constitutes but a fraction of the wealth owned by individuals in society. If land were the only item of wealth, equal sharing might to-day be possible, from a mere physical point of view, but with wealth made up of countless other items as it is to-day, the problem of distribution by equal sharing becomes an impossibility. The principles upon which the Socialists found their claim to equal sharing are: I. There is enough wealth in the world to satisfy the wants of all the members of society. 2. Whatever wealth has been amassed has been so amassed owing to the beneficent conditions arising from the mechanism of society. But each individual of society has been instrumental in establishing and preserving these conditions. The individuals, therefore, ought all to share in the general good - the wealth amassed in society. 3. The fact that unequal possession of the wealth of society exists is due to no natural causes, but to causes wholly artificial, to spoliation of the poor by the rich. Equilibrium must be reestablished by expropriation, according to the revolutionary Socialists, by progressive taxation, according to the more moderate element. As a matter of fact, the rich constitute in all countries but a small minority of the whole people. In the United States, according to Thos. G. Shearman, 1.4 per cent of the population own 70 per cent of the wealth, According to Holmes, an expert, 0.03 per cent of the population own 20 per cent of the wealth, In the British Isles six million families, or over three fourths of the people of Great Britain and Ireland, have no registered property. It may be well to consider what would actually be the result if equal sharing were put in practice. If, for illustration, we take the census valuation of real and personal property in the United States for 1890, we find that the total wealth equaled $65,000,000,000, of which the following were the most important items: Real estate, with improvements Live stock on farms, farm implements, and machinery Mines and quarries and stock on hand. Gold and silver coin and bullion Machinery in mills and product on hand Railroads and equipments and street railways $35,000,000,000 2,700,000,000 1,300,000,000 1,100,000,000 3,000,000,000 9,700,000,000 700,000,000 Divide this total amount by the population of 1890, and the per capita wealth will be $1038. Each family (average at that time = 4.8 persons) would have for its share $4982, if the national wealth were equally distributed to families in 1890. Of this amount, $2683 would be in real estate, and $84 in coin. Again, in 1890, the national income was $10,800,000,000, which would give $172 to each member of society, or $827 to each family. The per capita wealth of France in 1890 was $1025. In other countries, in 1895, according to R. E. May: With equal distribution, therefore, many families and individuals would be better off than they are at present. But such a scheme would be attended by insuperable difficulties. It would be impossible to calculate with any degree of exactness the total product of a year's industry. Any figures that represent a country's wealth are at best but approximate estimates. Hence, it would be impossible to know exactly what ought to be the share of the individual in this system of equal sharing. Again, it would be manifestly absurd to make all equal sharers in a product to which many through idleness and unskillfulness had contributed nothing. Equal sharing would bring about unjust expropriation of property, the destruction of all personal incentive to production, an appeal to violence. (2) Sharing according to Wants. "Every one should receive according to his wants." The proposal is that common stores are to receive all the outcome of production, and to these all the members of society may repair and from the common stock satisfy all their wants. This idea is founded on the assumption that the amount of wealth produced is sufficient to satisfy the wants of men. But if the amount of wealth is actually sufficient to satisfy the moderate and restricted wants of all the members of society, there would surely not be sufficient to satisfy the wants of men under a communistic régime, for it is a well-established fact that wants increase with the facility with which they can be satisfied. In such an order of things, there would be no authority to regulate wants. Mutual concessions, the exercise of kindly good will, and the feeling of fellowship would alone determine distribution. The absurdity and the utter impracticability of such a method must appeal at once to any one who knows human nature. (3) Sharing according to Merits or Capacities." Every one should receive according to his merits or capacities." The idea is chimerical. It supposes a state of society in which human frailties and human passions would not exist. It supposes that every member of society is possessed of honest zeal to do his utmost possible share of the general industrial labor, that an adequate and impartial supervision is possible whereby each one's endeavor may be justly estimated, and that every one will peacefully submit to the allotment that may be given him. (4) Sharing according to Labor." Every one should receive according to his labor." All the instruments of production, capital and land, belonging to the nation, the proceeds of production are to be turned into the national treasury. After the national expenses are paid, the remainder is to be distributed among the producers, according to the labor each one has contributed. The principle is open to many difficulties. In every kind of society, there must be many individuals who are not actually employed in industrial labor. Such are teachers, judges, public officials, and many others. There would have to be some norm by which their services to the state or the community could be estimated in terms of labor. In regard to labor itself, is it to be measured by the time devoted to labor, the labor-time, or by the amount and kind of productive effort made, or by the actual product turned out by labor? The principle is founded on the false assumption that labor is the standard of all values, that a commodity will have value only dependent on the amount of labor required to produce it. Value, as we have seen, depends on the property possessed by a product to satisfy a want and the desire men have for that product. Coöperation. It is thought by some that the evils existing under the present methods of distribution may be remedied without any recourse to the Socialist systems, by means of coöperation. This system embraces all forms of coöperative societies, such as Consumers' Societies, Credit Associations, Productive Associations. The system does not do away with private property, nor has it any of the objectionable features attaching to Socialism. It can scarcely be called a system. It is the effort on the part of groups of individuals banded together to render living cheaper, to do away in part with competition, to distribute more generally the profits accruing from production, to offer more easy means for the obtaining of capital. Some of these coöperative associations have already been discussed, and there will be occasion to discuss other forms of this system at a later period. The Catholic School. - Followers of the Catholic School do not deny that much of the evil existing in society is due to defective methods of distribution at present in force. But they suggest no such drastic changes as do the Socialists, nor would they do away with existing social institutions. They advocate amelioration of the social evils through state interference, through wise legislation affecting inheritance, taxes, contracts, land rent, hours of labor, wages. They propose the uplifting of the working classes through the formation of associations and unions for their mutual protection and help. They appeal to the influence of the Church's teaching and the power of Christian doctrine to bring about a spirit of charity and justice in the mutual dealings of capitalists and laborers, and a recognition on the part of the employer of the dignity of the man who labors for him and of his right to a reasonable and just share of the wealth produced. Parties to Distribution. The several parties among whom distribution of the returns of production is made are variously classified by different authors. The more generally received classification is that of The Landlord, who receives rent for the use of his land; We shall study each of these shares in the proceeds of production, Rent, Interest, Profits, and Wages, and seek out the principles that determine their distribution. Rent and interest |