possible the maintenance of the power of the capitalists. And to attain
their object, it suffices to exploit the primitive fund of savage hatred
for "foreigners."
But this does not keep international socialism from being, even from
this point of view, a definite moral scheme and an inevitable phase of
human evolution.
Just so, and in consequence of the same sociological law, it is not
correct to assert that, by establishing collective ownership, socialism
will suppress every kind of individual ownership.
We must repeat again that one phase of evolution can not suppress all
that has been accomplished during the preceding phases; it suppresses
only the manifestations which have ceased to be vital, and it suppresses
them because they are in contradiction with the new conditions of
existence begotten by the new phases of evolution.
In substituting social ownership for individual ownership of the land
and the means of production, it is obvious that it will not be necessary
to suppress private property in the food necessary to the individual,
nor in clothing and objects of personal use which will continue to be
objects of individual or family consumption.
This form of individual ownership will then always continue to exist,
since it is necessary and perfectly consistent with social ownership of
the land, mines, factories, houses, machines, tools and instruments of
labor, and means of transportation.
The collective ownership of libraries--which we see in operation under
our eyes--does it deprive individuals of the personal use of rare and
expensive books which they would be unable to procure in any other way,
and does it not largely increase the utility that can be derived from
these books, when compared to the services that these books could render
if they were shut up in the private library of a useless book-collector?
In the same way, the collective ownership of the land and the means of
production, by securing to everyone the use of the machines, tools and
land, will only increase their utility a hundred-fold.
And let no one say that, when men shall no longer have the exclusive and
transferable (by inheritance, etc.) _ownership_ of wealth, they will no
longer be impelled to labor because they will no longer be constrained
to work by personal or family self-interest.[57] We see, for example,
that, even in our present individualist world, those survivals of
collective property in land--to which Laveleye has s
|