only
apparently and by a conventional illusion of language one's real
and actual "possession." That this is the case can be proved by the
fact that any of these "human possessions" has only to commit
suicide, to escape for ever from such bondage.

The illusion of private property derives its vigour and its obstinate
vividness from two things; from the apparent increase of power
and importance which accompanies it, and from its association
with that necessary minimum of food, shelter, clothing, leisure,
comfort, freedom, solitude, and happiness, which is certainly real,
essential and indispensable.

The universal wisdom of the ages bears witness to the fact that a
"moderate poverty" or a "moderate competence" is the ideal
outward state for a man to find himself in. And this "moderate
enjoyment" of food, shelter, clothing, comfort, leisure and
emotional happiness, is a thing which, in a scientifically organized
communistic society, would be within the reach of even the least
efficient.

The gloomy and melancholy argument brought forward by the
enemies of "communism" that under such a condition "the
incentive of private initiative would disappear" and that no other
motive could take its place, is an argument based upon the
assumption that human nature derives more inspiration from the
idea of dishonourable greed than it derives from the idea of
honourable and useful labour; which is an assumption so wholly
opposed to true psychology that it has only to be nakedly stated to
be seen in its complete absurdity.

What the psychologist, interested in this abysmal struggle between
the idea of communism and the idea of private property, has to
note is the nature and character of the particular individual who
brings forward this argument of the "incentive of greed" or the
"initiative" produced by greed. Such an individual will never be
found to be a great man of science, or a great artist or scholar or
craftsman, or a first-rate engineer, or a highly trained artisan or
farmer or builder.

The individual bringing forward this argument of the "initiative of
greed" will invariably be found to be a member of what might be
called the "parasitic class." He will either be an intellectually
second-rate minister or politician or lawyer or professor, or he will
be a commercial and financial "middleman," whose activities are
entirely absorbed in the art of exploitation and who has never
experienced the sensation of creative work.