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)
The lot of the worker steadily
progressed from 1800 up till 1900, when, in certain industries, there set
in tendencies of retrogression. It has been one continuous record of rise
in standard of living, and in wages, both nominal amount and purchasing
power, due to improvement in production from the introduction of
machinery, development of food production in new countries, and expansion
of our export trade. This has been largely the result of the capitalistic
organization of industry, and of its ability to meet the demands of the
consumer, and of the extraordinary elasticity inherent in the system of
adapting itself to varying circumstances.
Without the machinery provided by the much-abused capitalist Labour would
to-day be “scratching the ground” to extract a penurious livelihood. The
capitalistic organization of industry would never have survived, had it
not been in the main economically sound, and, on the whole, a system
which made for the good of society. This is the system which is to be
wholly destroyed by the Labour Party because of certain alleged defects,
and replaced by an untried socialistic regime.
The Alleged Defects of Capitalism
First, it is said that under capitalism the incentive stands ethically
condemned in that an employer is actuated wholly by a desire for his own
private profit. I fail to see any turpitude in that motive; an employer
can only make profit if he succeeds in serving the community. There are,
of course, some—I personally have met very few—employers who deliberately
try to foist on credulous consumers an adulterated or spurious article.
But it is exactly for the same motive, namely, for profit, that the
worker serves his employer, or, if that is an unacceptable analogy, that
a member of a gang of workers serves his fellow-worker who is head of the
gang and employing him. There are just as many workmen, indeed more, who
are ready to pass off bad work upon their employer as employers prepared
to pass off bad work upon the community.
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