Part
I: Philosophy
CHAPTER V
SABOTAGE
AND THE CULTURAL HERITAGE
A
CONCEPTION which is closely connected with the theory of rewards
and punishments, is that of "Value." In effect, value may be
defined, to fit the orthodox conception of it, as that quality
which gives to anything maximum exchangeability under present
conditions. Rewards and Punishments, Justice, i.e. the
assessments of desserts, and "Value," i.e. the basis
on which desserts are assessed, may be said to be the corner
stones of the Semitic structure of society.
Now,
so far as this attribute called "value" can be said to have
any basis in the nature of things, it consists in that quality
which renders a given object serviceable in the attainment of
a given end. But it will be found on consideration that this
definition is eventually antagonistic to the more orthodox description
of the quality previously given. For instance, if it is necessary
for me to cross a large river, a boat would seem to be my immediate
requirement. Its utilitarian value to me consists in its ability
to transport me across the river with a minimum of inconvenience
and a maximum of speed. But the generally accepted opinion of
its value would be directly proportional to my ability or the
ability of someone else, to submit to penalisation financially
for the use of the boat, and this again would be directly proportional
to the urgency of my need and would be enhanced by the absence
of other boats. It should be particularly noticed that this
kind of value is not inherent - it is one remove away from the
simple usefulness of the boat.
As
a result of this conflict of ideas and consequently of objectives,
the value of anything which has a use is, according to the popular
idea, enhanced by its scarcity, and it is quite fair and unimpeachably
logical that a world which seeks after "values" should proceed
to create them through the agency of scarcity.
It
is not only logical, but what is more important, it is what
happens. The process of creating "Values" by creating a demand
which is in excess of the supply, is called advertisement, and
by restricting a supply so that it is always less than the demand,
is technically known as Sabotage. Advertisement has its exposition
on every hoarding; Sabotage is its commercial complement, and
is one of the most widespread features of our existing civilisation,
and yet one which on the whole passes unnoticed, in anything
like its true proportions, by the general public. It is not
confined to any one class of business or profession, although
its cruder manifestations, as might be expected, are found amongst
the less fortunately placed masses of the people. It is, of
course, the only theory, if it can be so called, underlying
the strike, the assumption being that if the whole of the available
labour can be taken off the market the financial value of it
immediately increases. The higher manifestations of it are slightly
more subtle but identical in principle. The modern objective
of big business is to obtain the maximum amount of money for
the minimum amount of goods. Or to put it more accurately, to
obtain a maximum total price for a minimum total cost. As a
result of this, business acumen is measured by the ability to
create price rings in indispensable goods, while decreasing
the purchasing power or "costs," distributed during their manufacture
and storage.
The
theory underlying both advertisement and Sabotage, together
with their results, has been treated at some length elsewhere.*
An important aspect of the latter, however, which will perhaps
bear explanation at this time, is concerned with the financial
policy of nations.
*
"Economic Democracy."
When
we say that the objective of modern business is to obtain a
maximum total price for a minimum total cost, we are implying
in the case of a given undertaking that the receipts shall be
at least equal to the disbursements, and in addition that the
surplus of receipts shall be as large as possible. This is the
same thing as saying that all the costs of an article shall
be included in the price of it to the public. In the case
of a nation, as at present situated, all the alleged services
which it renders to the public composing it are supposed to
be paid for eventually by taxes, and the objective of every
orthodox government is to balance its budget, and to repay its
"borrowings." That is to say, to make its receipts in taxation
equal or exceed its expenditure, and in addition to have as
large a surplus as possible with which to pay the interest on
loans created by the financial hierarchy and to "sustain the
nation's credit" in view of future loans.
When,
later, we come to examine the mechanism of money and the sources
from which it originates, it will be seen that this is not in
any fundamental sense necessary, but for the moment it is only
requisite to point out that the result is to create a shortage
of money in the hands of the general public, and in consequence
to enhance its scarcity value. If we can conceive, what is in
fact the case under the existing financial system, that money
is a commodity in exactly the same sense as is tea or sugar,
and that there is a powerful, if unobtrusive business ring which
deals in money as a commodity, it will be readily understood
that the balancing of budgets and the repayment of loans by
taxation is a prime interest of those interested in the commodity.
Money dealers are normally deflationists.
As
no government can carry on for a month without money, it is
not necessary to labour the point that the visible government
of a country is obliged to take its orders and to shape its
policy, and particularly its financial policy, in accordance
with the instructions of the dealers in this indispensable implement,
so long as they hold a practical monopoly of it.
Just
as the artificial theory of rewards and punishments is a distorted
reflection of the automatic process of cause and effect, and
the orthodox idea of value has possibly its root in something
which may be described as suitability, so, that questionable
abstraction to which we refer under the name of justice may
have a groundwork in the nature of things. One instance of this,
and an instance having immense importance at the present time,
is contained in the theory of "cultural heritage."
The
early Victorian political economists agreed in ascribing all
"values" to three essentials: land, labour, and capital. Without
staying at the moment to discuss the unsatisfactory meanings
which were frequently attached to these words, we may notice
that, the three together being defined as the source of all
wealth, the possession of one or the other of them seemed logically
defensible as a claim, and collectively, the only valid claim
to the wealth produced. But it is rapidly receiving recognition
that, while there might be a rough truth in this argument during
the centuries prior to the industrial revolution consequent
on the inventive period following the Renaissance, and culminating
in the steam engine, the spinning-jenny, and so forth, there
is now a fourth factor in wealth production, the multiplying
power of which far exceeds that of the other three, which may
be expressed in the words of Mr. Thorstein Veblen* (although
he does not appear to have grasped its full implication) as
the "progress of the industrial arts." Quite clearly, no one
person can be said to have a monopoly share in this; it is the
legacy of countless numbers of men and women, many of whose
names are forgotten and the majority of whom are dead. And since
it is a cultural legacy, it seems difficult to deny that the
general community, as a whole, and not by any qualification
of land, labour, or capital, are the proper legatees. But if
the ownership of wealth produced vests in the owners of the
factors contributed to its production, and the owners of the
legacy of the industrial arts are the general community, it
seems equally difficult to deny that the chief owners, and rightful
beneficiaries of the modern productive system, can be shown
to be the individuals composing the community, as such.
*
"The Engineers and the Price System."
CLICK
HERE TO DISCUSS THIS BOOK
|
|