Labour policy—false and true : $b A study in economic history and industrial economicsMacassey, Lynden Livingston
History
Labour policy—false and true : $b A study in economic history and industrial economics
Macassey, Lynden Livingston
Industrial policy -- Great Britain; Labor economics -- Great Britain; Labour Party (Great Britain)
But taught by war-time experience, the Labour Party has become more
cautious. It no longer contends as it used to do that all industries
can be nationalized—an admission, the importance of which should not be
overlooked. It would nationalize and democratically control only some
of the great national industries, the smaller and less well-organized
industries it will leave, for the present, alone. It even goes so far as
to admit the economic necessity for the continuance of many middlemen.
The industries that it would nationalize are those that were small
and badly organized once, but which responded to the enterprise and
initiative of the pioneers who made them and so grew great. This, when
stripped of dialectics, means that Labour is satisfied that its regime of
nationalization and democratic control whatever else it can achieve—and
as to that we are left to speculate—cannot supply the enterprise and
initiative requisite for the development of budding industries. At what
stage in the growth of an industry Labour’s machinery of nationalization
and democratic control can step in and infuse those two great qualities
which are essential for vitality and progress, at a voltage higher than
can be generated under private ownership, no information whatsoever is
vouchsafed to us.
Those who have studied with a critical eye the official details of
Labour’s industrial policy in chapter VIII, will have noted that the
same veil of indefiniteness enshrouds the practical working out of
“nationalization and democratic control.” Is it to mean an increased
financial burden on the State? No details. How is the requisite capital
to be procured when we have performed the national obsequies over the
private capitalist? No details, except that it will be derived from a
mythical “national surplus” which now, at any rate, does not exist. By
what means are the waste and inefficiency which experience has shown to
be inherent in bureaucratically administered industries to be obviated?
No details. What is the mechanism which is going to compel the home
consumer to increase his consumption and the foreign consumer to buy
commodities which he will not, and cannot, buy to-day? No information.
Where will the secret fund be situated, and how is it to be formed, which
is going to finance higher wages and better conditions than under the
present scheme of industrial organization? We are not informed—that it
cannot be built up from employers’ profits is clear from chapter XXVI.
For the answers to these practical questions of crucial importance,
and to many others, we are left groping in the dark. All we are told
is that learned intellectuals of the Labour Party, out of their wealth
of industrial research and ample gifts of prescience, when the proper
time comes, will open their Pandora’s box and reveal the secrets. Is the
nation prepared to gamble its existence on that assurance?
Reform of Industry _v._ Reconstruction
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account