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)
of collecting the savings or surplus wealth of thrifty persons for
investment in industry, there is no difference in principle whatsoever.
Capitalism implies competition, and competition, Labour says, must
be eradicated out of social and industrial activity. Why competition
should be a good thing in every walk of human life and provide a
healthy stimulus, and yet not provide an equally beneficial stimulus
in industrial and commercial affairs is hard to follow. What Labour
really intends to say is that competition acts so as to depress wages
and lower the standard of living of the worker. That is only one side;
competition acts so as to increase demand for commodities and the volume
of employment, and, if production were not restricted, would increase
wages. Then it is said that the capitalistic organization of industry
involves economic waste, by which is meant that industry is carried on
less efficiently under private management than it would be either under
Government or under “democratic control.” If there is waste it is the
capitalist who suffers, the Trade Unionist always receives his standard
rate of wages. If there is waste on the employers’ side, as of course
there is in some badly organized shops, there is greater waste in the
shape of restricted production on the part of the worker. Organization
and efficiency are, of course, essential to industrial progress, but
to suggest that these essential qualities are better obtained under
bureaucratic or democratic control is at variance with our experience
during the war and of present conditions in Russia where democratic
control has laid the hand of death on industry.
Where Reform is Admittedly Needed
It must not be assumed that the capitalistic system of organization of
industry is perfect and needs no reform; unfortunately, it exhibits
a number of well-marked deficiencies. First of all, an employer only
employs a man as long as he desires or finds he can profitably do so, in
just the same way that the workman only works for an employer as long
as he finds it suits him and no better job is forthcoming. One defect
certainly of the present capitalistic system is the failure of employers
in industry as a whole or of each industry in particular to provide
against unemployment. On this matter I have a good deal to say in a
subsequent part of this book. Again, in the past there was a regrettable
tendency which, in recent years, has happily disappeared amongst the
best employers, to disregard the human qualities, aspirations, needs
and susceptibilities of the worker, coupled with a neglect to provide
effectively for his welfare and well-being in the works. This, however,
is nothing intrinsic in the capitalistic organization of industry; I have
heard equally bitter complaints by the workers when I have been sitting
as arbitrator in disputes between employees of the “non-capitalistic”
co-operative societies and the societies’ democratic managements.
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