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 realities must be faced. There is no good in evading the fact that
while capital is essential and of incalculable benefit to humanity, it
can, at the same time, like any other human possession, be used so as to
cause inconvenience, injustice, distress, degradation, death. In short,
the use of capital may be socially beneficent, or it may be maleficent,
anti-social. The invariable example which the workman adduces of its
anti-social use is “profiteering” in many of its accustomed forms. It
is a great misfortune that there is no precise term in use to describe
the particular function of capital as an agent in production. Aristotle
distinguished on arbitrary principles which he enunciated, and derived
from the conditions of his time, between the natural beneficial use of
wealth, which he calls “economics,” and the unnatural abuse of wealth,
which he calls “chrematistics.” His principles are out of date, the
terminological distinction which he attempted was sound. This is what
happens always in industrial discussion: employers, thinking of the
beneficent function played by capital in production, emphasize the
dependence of Labour on capital—Labour, thinking of the anti-social uses
of capital, and reasoning from the particular to the general, retorts
that capital is the cause of all Labour’s troubles. If both employers
and workers could, by appropriate terms, get down to discussing the same
thing, there would be substantial prospect of agreement; to-day there is
none.
The Marxian Fallacy of Value
The next notion in the workman’s mind subversive of co-operation is his
idea, derived from Marx, that “the value of a commodity is the amount
of abstract human labour embodied in it.” If this be true, as so many
workmen now fervently believe, it follows that the employer contributes
nothing whatever to the value of the manufactured product, and that
the only value-producing agency is labour. In truth neither workman
nor employer creates value; both unite to perform services or produce
things which other circumstances, e.g. demand, cause to be of value, and
they do so because of that value. But the material point is that the
Marxian doctrine rules out co-operation. Logically, it implies that the
only possible remedy for the present lot of the worker consists in the
complete demolition of the present organization of industry. The worker
who accepts the Marxian theory of value, with its corollary theory of
surplus value, is a weak-kneed individual and a traitor to his brethren,
if he be cajoled for a moment into co-operating with his employer, or
if he hesitates to fight whole-heartedly for the eradication of the
employer, root and branch, from the industrial system.
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