6. Why Corporate Reform
Requires a Reform of Man
When
it comes to reforming mankind, the Program runs into exactly the same
difficulties encountered by statist communism.
Although
they may have lent themselves to abuse, the economic principles in force in the
West emanate from human nature itself. In brief, the common characteristic of
these principles is the affirmation of the legitimacy of private property,
initiative and profit.
The
socialists, however, propose to establish another economic system directed
toward other ends and stimulated by other incentives (cf. Program, p. 173).
What they call profit only for some must be gradually replaced by the criteria
of social utility, determined by the sovereign will of the people. In other
words the socialists, like the communists, hold that the individual exists for
society and should produce, not for his own good, but directly for the good of
the community to which he belongs.
Under
this system, the best incentive for work disappears, production necessarily
drops, and indolence and misery prevail in all of society.
Every
man seeks, both by the light of reason and by a continuous, powerful and
fruitful instinctive movement, to provide first for his personal needs and
those of his family. When self-preservation is at stake, the human intelligence
fights more easily against its limitations and grows in both sharpness and
agility The will overcomes laziness more easily and confronts obstacles and
struggles with greater vigor. In short, the worker attains a level of
productivity quantitatively and qualitatively commensurate with the real
necessities and decorum of society. From this initial impulse imbued with
legitimate love of himself and his own, a man's love of his neighbor extends
like concentric waves that should ultimately encompass society as a whole. In
this way, far from benefiting only his small family group, his activity assumes
a scope proportional to society.
Socialism
instills discouragement in every worker by abolishing this powerful and natural
initial incentive to work and by replacing it with an increasingly egalitarian
wage system that fails to reward the more capable proportionately.
Thus,
the whole impulse of a nation's work force drops and becomes weak and
insufficient, as so obviously happens in Russia and its satellite countries.
This also happens, though perhaps less obviously, in Yugoslavia. And
analogously this is what is going to happen in self-managing France. 18
Here
we stress the strength of incentive provided by inequality and the depressive
effect of both general equal and microscopic inequalities.
The
wage ceiling in an egalitarian society will inevitably be equal for all, or
only slightly unequal, as can be verified by comparing wage ceilings in
communist countries with those in the West.
By
the very nature of things work capacity varies immensely from man to man.
The overall productivity of a nation presupposes the full stimulation of all
capacities, especially those of the extremely capable.
The legitimate ambitions of the extremely capable can be almost unlimited in
the socio-economic regime of the West. Once set in motion, they successfully
stimulate the whole hierarchy of necessarily lesser capacities which also have
before them proportionate possibilities of success. Once the rise of the very
capable or the capable is limited, their productive drive decreases.
Furthermore, when the very capable work below capacity, the capable also become
discouraged, and the overall production level drops.
Thus,
egalitarianism necessarily leads to a production inferior to the sum of a
country's work capacities. The more radical the egalitarianism, the lower the
level of productivity.
Now,
it seems that the ceiling allowed by the Program responds only to the modest
aspirations of the average.
|