Finance and Industry: Free Distribution
The productive resources of the world have long since reached the point which would allow mankind to go over, in a very short time, to free distribution of the things needed to life and to enjoy life. Socialists are suggesting a world community where wealth is produced by voluntary labour and is available to all free of charge.
To many this suggestion seems fantastic. Perhaps we can make what we mean a little clearer by pointing to a few things with which everybody is familiar.
Sir Alan Herbert, the humorist, always makes a witty speech at the Annual Meeting of the shareholders of the Savoy Hotel. This year he spoke of an Air (nationalisation) Bill:
“Everybody breathes and occupies air, but not the same amount and extent, which is evidently unjust”
As a defence of private property in the means of production Sir Alan chose a particularly inapt example. For air, continually recreated by natural processes, is one of the few things that is now freely available to all. Nobody has managed to establish a monopoly in the supply of air. But with other, equally necessary, requisites for life such as food, clothing and shelter the situation is different. Food, for instance, is not freely available. In fact the production of food is carried on not to satisfy human needs but for sale at a profit. Before people can get food they must already have in their possession wealth — generally metallic or paper money tokens. This they must hand over, on a value for value basis, to those who own the food before they can eat it.
Why could not food be freely available like air? And, if it can be, why isn’t it? The difference between air and food is this: food is the product of human labour ; air is not. Before food can be freely available men must have free access to the means and instruments of labour.
But, what is free access? Last August 5 the Daily Telegraph had an article under the headline SPACE FOR ALL MANKIND. The article discusses a draft space treaty. Under the treaty, states and individuals were to be barred from appropriating the moon “by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means”. The treaty proposed there be “free access” to all celestial bodies. Thus space would become “a province of mankind”.
Although it is difficult for lawyers (products of a world where land and other wealth is monopolised by a class) to grasp what free access is, we must grant that those who drafted this treaty have not done badly. They make clear that sectional ownership of celestial bodies is to be barred so that they will belong to all mankind.
Apply this to Earth and what we mean by free access should become clear. No section of society will monopolise access to the means for producing wealth. These will belong to no-one and so will be the property of the whole of mankind to use as they think fit.
But, once again, there is an important difference between free access to areas like celestial bodies and free access to the means of production. To operate these organisation is needed. In other words, free access must not merely be allowed, it must be organised too. Where there are no social classes the only method there can be is democracy. Mankind will control the use of the means of production through democratic institutions.
The technical problem of producing enough wealth for all to enjoy has been solved long ago. However, there could be temporary problems in supplying certain things — but at least, if there are to be problems, this is what they should be. How to provide more and not how to cut down consumption as is the case today.
What, do you think, is the purpose of gas and electricity meters? The answer is simple: to see you don’t get unlimited supplies to use as you feel necessary, as you can with water. Water is not of course provided free. It is just that the method of paying for it is unusual: by means of a general water rate. After paying this, you can use as much water for domestic purposes as you like. But for how long? Already they’re discussing metering the water supply. An article in the March issue of the Three Banks Review discussing the water industry says:
“The question arises whether it is justifiable to use land and money to provide water in unlimited quantity to domestic users. Unlimited water is a pleasant luxury, but might not the consumer prefer the land and money to be used in some alternative way, even if this means restricting bis water use? . . . The only way to find out whether domestic consumers are prepared to pay for extra water at cost is to charge that cost. This means charging by quantity and ultimately means metering every domestic supply.”
In other words, meters could be installed to restrict water use.
One of the reasons the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in its report on the Post Office gave for not returning to the system of allowing unlimited use of telephones after paying the rental charge was:
“A considerable amount of extra exchange equipment would have to be installed to handle the extra traffic induced . . . In particular changes would have to be made in the present arrangement for metering all calls.”
Meters once again restrict use.
It is not our job to get mixed up in arguments over pricing policies for such things as water, gas, electricity and telephones, but to point out that the different ways of charging for water and, say, electricity bring out the restrictive nature of capitalism. There is no technical reason why electricity, gas and telephone services could not be provided to be used as needed. Indeed the technical problem for capitalism is just the opposite: to find ways of charging so as to prevent unlimited use.
Socialists have always pointed to ticket collectors as an example of the absurdity and waste of capitalism. Apparently, there will be none on the new Victoria Line underground in London. Instead, the Sunday Times of April 16 tells us:
“When the Victoria Line opens next year it will be equipped with a novel robot ticket collecting system. Instead of handing in their tickets at the end of a journey passengers will present pieces of paper coated with iron oxide to a machine to ’read’. If the machine reckons that they have paid too little the automatic exit gate remains firmly shut.”
What a waste of resources in terms of time and skill! And just to see that people don’t use the underground as they please.
In these cases mechanical devices make obvious the restrictions capitalism places on our use and enjoyment of wealth. However, our access to other goods and services is just as effectively restricted by other, social means: the size of our wage packet or salary cheque.
A.L.B.