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)
Labour’s proposal, therefore, is to abolish capitalism and replace it
by that brand of Socialism known as “nationalization and democratic
control.” We should first realize what we owe to the capitalism which
we are asked to destroy. Our first debt is certainly liberty. This is
convincingly worked out by Mr. Harold Cox in his _Economic Liberty_, p.
2. Liberty to possess and use property consistently with the good of the
community, liberty to buy, to sell, to work, to strike, in fact complete
liberty in all economic relations. This is to be surrendered and replaced
by the bureaucratic control of the State Socialist, or the equally
autocratic control under the scheme of the Guild Socialist. Liberty is
a prize not hastily to be relinquished. This capitalistic system is not
the selfish system as described by Labour. It can only exist provided
it supplies commodities and services, of which the community stands in
need, at prices which the community can afford to pay. That is no light
responsibility. One of the necessary consequences of any socialistic
organization of industry is that the community must use and pay for such
commodities as it is convenient and desirable for industry to produce;
under any socialistic regime, therefore, the consumer, instead of being
an object of regard, becomes a mere wheel in the mechanism of production.
The capitalistic system develops energy and thrift, though the former
has been largely neutralized by the sterilizing effect of Trade Union
doctrines against output, and the latter frustrated by the inability
of industry as a result of production thus restricted to pay high
wages. Under a socialistic regime the worker is to receive not wages
but “pay” and whether he works or not. All progress in industry depends
upon initiative and enterprise and the readiness to take risks. To-day
risks are assumed by the owner of capital and, if they materialize,
they are borne by him and not by the workers or the community. It would
be ludicrous to say that either the State under State Socialism or
industry under any form of democratic control would or could exert the
same initiative or show the same enterprise as the private capitalist.
Economic history teems with examples of great industries now employing
thousands of workers which were originally established by capitalists
who, stubbornly persistent, refused to accept failure and by sheer
dogged enterprise won through. The world has wonderfully prospered under
the capitalistic organization in industry. We see social conditions
enormously improved, innumerable social reforms effected, the welfare
and well-being of the people prodigiously advanced. Sir Josiah Stamp—an
outstanding authority—said in 1921, as a result of a statistical
investigation, “the ordinary person of to-day is four times as well off
in real commodities as the person in the corresponding stage in the
scale in the beginning of the nineteenth century.” During this hundred
years the population has quadrupled.
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