3.—Poverty and Fecundity.

No matter from what side we view the capitalistic system of production, we arrive at the conclusion that the poverty and misery of the masses is not due to a lack of food, but to an unequal distribution of same, and to wrong methods, that create an abundance for some and compel others to live in want. The assertions of Malthus have sense only from the standpoint of capitalistic production. On the other hand, the capitalistic method of production urges the production of children. Cheap “hands,” in the shape of children, are needed for its factories and work-shops. Among proletarians the procreation of children becomes a sort of calculation, as they earn their own living. The proletarian employed in domestic industry is even obliged to have many children, for they help him to be able to compete. This is assuredly an abominable system; it increases the pauperization of the workingman and his dependence upon the employer. The proletarian is compelled to work for lower and lower wages, and every labor law destined to protect workingmen, that does not include the persons engaged in domestic industry, only causes the employer to widen the circle of those so employed, for wherever this form of production is possible, it offers particular advantages to the capitalist.

But the capitalistic system does not lead only to an over-production of goods and of workers, but also to an over-production of intellect. Intellectuals, too, find it increasingly difficult to obtain employment, as the supply constantly surpasses the demand. There is only one thing in this capitalistic world that is never superfluous, and that is capital and its owner, the capitalist.

If the bourgeois economists are followers of Malthus, they are what they must be in accordance with their bourgeois interests. Only they should refrain from transferring their bourgeois prejudices to Socialistic society. John Stuart Mill says: “Communism is that very state of affairs of which one may expect, that it will vehemently oppose this sort of selfish immoderation. Every increase of the population that would diminish the comfortable status of the population or increase its toils, would cause direct and unmistakable inconvenience to each individual member of the association, and this inconvenience could no longer be ascribed to the rapacity of the employers or the unfair privileges of the rich. Under such circumstances, public opinion could not fail to make known its disproval, and if this would not suffice, punishments of one kind or another would be resorted to, in order to suppress this and similar immoderations. The danger of over-population, then, is not advanced by the communistic theory; this theory, on the contrary, tends to counteract this danger in a marked degree.” Professor Adolf Wagner says, in Rau’s “Text-book of Political Economy:” “Least of all could a Socialistic community grant absolute freedom of marriage or freedom in the procreation of children.” The authors both proceed from the opinion that the tendency toward over-population is common to all social systems, but they both grant that Socialism will be better able to maintain an equilibrium between population and nourishment than any other form of society. The latter is true, but the former is not.

There were, indeed, some Socialists who were infected by the ideas of Malthus, and feared that over-population was “an imminent danger.” But these Socialistic Malthusians have disappeared. A better understanding of the nature of bourgeois society has changed their opinion on this subject. The complaints of our agrarians also teach us that we have too much food—viewed from the standpoint of the world market—and that the resulting lowering of prices make the production of food unprofitable.

Our Malthusians imagine,—and the chorus of bourgeois leaders thoughtlessly echo their fears,—that a Socialistic society upholding freedom of choice in love and maintaining an existence worthy of human beings for all its members, would foster rabbit-like propensities. They imagine that people, under such conditions, would indulge in an unbridled satisfaction of their lusts and in unlimited procreation of children. Rather the contrary is likely to be true. So far not the well-to-do classes have had the greatest number of children, but, on the contrary, the poorest classes. Indeed, we may say without exaggeration: the poorer the position of a proletarian stratum is, the more numerous is its blessing of children; occasional exceptions are, of course, conceded. This opinion is confirmed by Virchow, who wrote, in the middle of the last century; “as the English laborer in his deepest degradation, in the utmost emptiness of mind, knows only two sources of enjoyment, intoxication and cohabitation, so the population of Upper Silesia, until recent years, had concentrated all its desires and endeavors upon these two things. The enjoyment of liquor and the satisfaction of the sexual impulse had become the supreme factors of its existence, and so it can be easily explained that the population increased as rapidly in numbers, as it deteriorated physically and morally.”

Karl Marx expresses himself similarly in “Capital.” He says: “Not only the number of births and deaths, but the absolute size of the families also is in reverse ratio to the height of the wages, that is, to the means of subsistence at the disposal of the various categories of laborers. This law of capitalistic society would sound absurd among savages or even among civilized colonists. It reminds one of the enormous reproduction of species of animals that are individually weak and much hunted.” Marx furthermore quotes Laing, who says: “If the whole world lived in comfortable circumstances, the world would soon be depopulated.” So Laing holds the opposite view from Malthus. He maintains that an improved standard of living does not increase the number of births, but diminishes them. Herbert Spencer expresses a similar opinion thus: “always and everywhere perfection of the species and its procreative ability are opposed to one another. From this follows that the further development of man will probably lead to a decrease in procreation.” We see, then, that men, maintaining different standpoints on other subjects, are fully agreed on this one, and we fully concur with their conception.