Part
I: Philosophy
CHAPTER II
INDUSTRY - GOVERNMENT OR SERVICE?
THE
practical difference between the theory of rewards and punishments,
and the modern scientific conception of cause and effect, can
be simply stated. The latter works automatically, and the former
does not. If I place my bare finger upon a red-hot bar, so far
as science is aware, I shall be burnt, whether I am a saint
or a pickpocket. That is the Modernist view. It is not so many
hundred years ago since the Classical view held that I should
only be burnt if I were a pickpocket or similar malefactor;
and ordeal by fire was a ceremony conducted on this theory.
It is alleged in select circles even yet, that it is possible
to be so saintly, that fire loses its power over the human flesh.
But a manufacturer of rolled steel rails, who laid out his factory
on the assumption that it would be possible to hire enough saints
to handle his white-hot product without apparatus other than
saintliness, would undoubtedly experience labour trouble.
That
is the point. It is not necessary to have a contempt, or to
be lacking in a proper respect, for qualities in human beings
which add to the grace, dignity and meaning of human existence,
to be quite clear that those qualities are not in themselves
at issue in regard to many of the economic and industrial problems
which confront the world at this time.
No
one would contend in so many words, that the efficiency of the
modern factory or farm, considered as a producing mechanism,
is seriously handicapped by the lack of moral qualities in those
employed. It is a familiar suggestion, brought forward for the
consumption of a mystified and uninformed public that, e.g.
"Ca' Canny" methods, Trade Union rules, and idle workers, are
responsible for trade depression, but only sentimentalists and
middlemen out of touch with production, pay serious attention
to the idea. Such practices may complicate the general question,
and their existence does enable the real causes to be masked
in a babel of recrimination. At the present time, however, there
is not a manufacturer of any consequence who would not feel
himself capable of obtaining almost any output required of him,
provided that all restrictions of price and cost were removed;
or to put the matter as shortly as possible, the difficulties
with which the modern employer is confronted are not difficulties
of production, they are difficulties in respect to the terms
of the contract to which he himself, his employees and the purchasing
public are all parties. If, therefore, a majority of persons
so placed that they are in a position to impose their will on
the remainder of the world, are determined to run the whole
producing system of the world as a form of government, it is
certainly not yet proven that they cannot do it. But it certainly
is already clearly proven that they cannot, at one and the same
time, make the producing and distributing systems a vehicle
for the government of individuals by the imposition of rewards
and punishments, which involves arbitrary restrictions on the
distribution of the product, and at the same time be the most
efficient and frictionless machine for the production and delivery
of the maximum amount of goods and services with the minimum
expenditure of time and labour on the part of those concerned
in the operation. That is indisputable.
So
far as this matter is ever discussed dispassionately, the argument
is apt to proceed in a vicious circle. In the face of the patent
and growing difficulty of finding employment in ordinary economic
avocations for those who at present cannot live without it,
it is claimed that the introduction of any method by which the
unemployed could live, i.e. be "rewarded" without being
employed, besides being immoral, "demoralises them,"
i.e. renders them unsuitable for subsequent employment.
Disregarding for the moment the circular nature of this argument,
it is curious to notice how generally it is accepted in the
face of a good deal of evidence to the contrary, and little
evidence in support of it. It is notorious that some of the
most successful and useful members of the community during the
times of stress between 1914 and 1919, were young men and women
of whom nothing but the worst was prophesied during their idle
years which immediately preceded the war. It is true, nevertheless,
that it is difficult to induce persons who have once enjoyed
the expanding influences of increased freedom of initiative,
to return to long hours of mechanical drudgery, offering no
prospect of improvement or release, and it is not unfair to
say that numbers of employers of a somewhat narrow outlook have
this fact at the back of their minds when they bewail the demoralising
influences which have been brought to bear upon their employees
during the last decade.
It
is evident then that, before any solution to all these problems
of world unrest can be put forward with any certainty of success,
it is necessary to come to some understanding on matters of
fact.
The
primary fact on which to be clear is that we can produce at
this moment, goods and services at a rate very considerably
greater than the possible rate of consumption of the world,
and this production and delivery of goods and services can,
under favourable circumstances, be achieved by the employment
of not more than 25 per cent of the available labour, working,
let us say, seven hours a day. It is also a fact that the introduction
of a horse-power-hour of energy into the productive process
could, under favourable circumstances, displace at least ten
man-hours. It is a fact that the amount of mechanical energy
available for productive purposes is only a small fraction of
what it could be. It seems, therefore, an unassailable deduction
from these facts that for a given programme of production, the
amount of man-hours required could be rapidly decreased, or
conversely, the programme could be increased with the same man-hours
of work, or any desired combination of these two could be arranged.
But it is also a fact that, for a given programme, increased
production per man-hour means decreased employment. It is also
a fact, that never during the past few decades have we been
free from an unemployment problem, and it is also a fact that
never during the past fifty years has any industrial country
been able to buy its own production with the wages, salaries,
and dividends available for that purpose, and in consequence,
all industrial countries have been forced to find export markets
for their goods.
So
that we are confronted with what seems to be a definite alternative.
We can say, as we are saying up to the present time, that the
wages, salaries, and dividends system, with its corollaries
of the employment system, as at present understood, and the
moral discipline which is interwoven with all those things,
is our prime objective. Having decided that, we have decided
that the industrial system with its banks, factories, and transportation
systems, exists for a moral end, and does not exist for the
reason which induces individuals to co-operate in it, i.e.
their need for goods; and that moral end can only be achieved
through the agency of the system and its prime constituent-employment.
And the practical policy to be pursued is one which has been
frequently pointed out from diverse sources, and which was the
basis, or alleged basis, of the Russian Revolution. It is to
make the man-hours necessary for a given programme of production
equal to the man-hours of the whole population of the world,
so that every one capable of any sort of work should, by some
powerful organisation, be set working for eight or any other
suitable number of hours a day. To achieve this end, the use
of labour-saving machinery should be discouraged, all scientific
effort should be removed from industry (as was at first done
in Russia), and, in particular, modern tools, processes, and
the application to industry of solar energy in its various forms
should be vigorously suppressed. Failing an alternative, one
should dig holes and fill them up again. All this is the logical
outcome of the attitude, not merely of the orthodox employer
(although he may not realise it), but of the orthodox socialist,
and it ought to be clearly recognised. The world has not yet
passed a deliberate verdict on the matter, and it ought to have
the case and the evidence; and in the meantime the atmosphere
of war and economic catastrophe in which the world is enveloped,
should be accepted as a desirable means towards a high moral
objective.
The
other alternative, while recognising the necessity for discipline
in the world, does not concern itself with that necessity in
considering the modem productive process. It surveys the facts,
finds an inherent incompatibility between the substitution of
solar energy for human energy, on the one hand, and the retention
of a financial and industrial system based on the assumption
that work is the only claim to goods, on the other hand, and
takes as its objective the delivery of goods, making the objective
always subordinate to human individuality. It is not concerned
with abstractions, such as justice. It has no comment to make
on the fact that one man does twice as much work as another,
except to enquire whether he likes doing it; or that one man
wants twice as much goods as another, except to investigate
the difficulties, if any, in giving them to him. It observes,
or thinks it observes, that it has sufficient data to predict
not only that such a policy would work, but that it is the only
policy in sight which would work.
The
vast majority of discussions which take place in regard to industrial
problems are prevented from arriving at any conclusion from
the fact that the disputants do not realise the premises on
which their arguments are based, and in many cases use words
(and "justice" is an example of such words) which beg the whole
question at issue. It is not too much to say that one of the
root ideas through which Christianity comes into conflict with
the conceptions of the Old Testament and the ideals of the pre-Christian
era, is in respect of this dethronement of abstractionism. That
is the issue which is posed by the Doctrine of the Incarnation.
........