On the other hand, if wealth were confiscated, the wealthy and the honest poor alike would be discontented with a dishonest government. Moreover, where would the Socialists draw the line of lawful possession? At $1,000,000, $10,000, $1,000, or $100? Would the decision be reached peaceably? Would the use and possession of government bonds be allowed? As the desire to acquire is one of the strongest passions, bitter hatred would assail the Socialist state, which, Debs tells us, would prohibit business profits, rent and interest. ["Socialism and Unionism," by Eugene V. Debs.] How could insurance companies, in which the American people have invested so much, and which depend on interest, exist under Socialism? Socialism having ruined the insurance companies, would the millions of policyholders just sit down and have a good, hearty laugh over their losses?
The real crux of Socialism is the inability of the Marxians to determine upon a system of employment and a scale of wages or remuneration satisfactory both to the government and the working classes.
Remuneration must either be in the form of money, or of goods or labor certificates entitling the holder to receive goods from the government stores. As labor certificates would be like money, we shall class them as "money" when speaking of wages.
Different schemes of employment have been proposed by Socialists. One of the oldest allows each individual to select the occupation he desires, provided he can do the work. All citizens, under this system, receive equal pay or equal supplies for their services.
Such a system is absurd. The more repugnant occupations, no matter how important for the welfare of the nation, would be neglected. All would want easy, clean jobs. Bootblacks might prefer to become artistic decorators; street-cleaners would ask to be put in charge of big factories; night-workers would prefer day-work. The result would be endless