The question of the feasibility of the Anarchist proposals in regard to distribution is, like so many other questions, a quantitative one.The Anarchist proposals consist of two parts: (1) That all the common commodities should be supplied ad lib.to all applicants; (2) That no obligation to work, or economic reward for work, should be imposed on anyone.These two proposals are not necessarily inseparable, nor does either entail the whole system of Anarchism, though without them Anarchism would hardly be possible.As regards the first of these proposals, it can be carried out even now with regard to some commodities, and it could be carried out in no very distant future with regard to many more.It is a flexible plan, since this or that article of consumption could be placed on the free list or taken of as circumstances might dictate.Its advantages are many and various, and the practice of the world tends to develop in this direction.I think we may conclude that this part of the Anarchists' system might well be adopted bit by bit, reaching1
But as regards the second proposal, that there should be no obligation to work, and no economic reward for work, the matter is much more doubtful.Anarchists always assume that if their schemes were put into operation practically everyone would work; but although there is very much more to be said for this view than most people would concede at first sight, yet it is questionable whether there is enough to be said to make it true for practical purposes.Perhaps, in a community where industry had become habitual through economic pressure, public opinion might be sufficiently powerful to compel most men to work;[44] but it is always doubtful how far such a state of things would be permanent.If public opinion is to be really effective, it will be necessary to have some method of dividing the community into small groups, and to allow each group to consume only the equivalent of what it produces.This will make the economic motive operative upon the group, which, since we are supposing it small, will feel that its collective share is appreciably diminished by each idle individual.Such a system might be feasible, but it would be contrary to the whole spirit of Anarchism and would destroy the main lines of its economic system.
[44] ``As to the so-often repeated objection that nobody would labor if he were not compelled to do so by sheer necessity, we heard enough of it before the emancipation of slaves in America, as well as before the emancipation of serfs in Russia; and we have had the opportunity of appreciating it at its just value.So we shall not try to convince those who can be convinced only by accomplished facts.As to those who reason, they ought to know that, if it really was so with some parts of humanity at its lowest stages--and yet, what do we know about it?--or if it is so with some small communities, or separate individuals, brought to sheer despair by ill-success in their struggle against unfavorable conditions, it is not so with the bulk of the civilized nations.With us, work is a habit, and idleness an artificial growth.'' Kropotkin, ``Anarchist Communism,'' p.30.
The attitude of orthodox Socialism on this question is quite different from that of Anarchism.[45] Among the more immediate measures advocated in the ``Communist Manifesto'' is ``equal liability of all to labor.
