Part 3 (2/2)

What gives unity to any activity, what alone can reconcile the conflicting claims of the different groups engaged in it, is the purpose for which it is carried on. If men have no common goal it is no wonder that they should fall out by the way, nor are they likely to be reconciled by a redistribution of their provisions. If they are not content both to be servants, one or other must be master, and it is idle to suppose that masters.h.i.+p can be held in a state of suspense between the two. There can be a division of functions between different grades of workers, or between worker and consumer, and each can {100} have in his own sphere the authority needed to enable him to fill it. But there cannot be a division of functions between the worker and the owner who is owner and nothing else, for what function does such an owner perform? The provision of capital? Then pay him the sum needed to secure the use of his capital, but neither pay him more nor admit him to a position of authority over production for which merely as an owner he is not qualified. For this reason, while an equilibrium between worker and manager is possible, because both are workers, that which it is sought to establish between worker and owner is not. It is like the proposal of the Germans to negotiate with Belgium from Brussels. Their proposals may be excellent: but it is not evident why they are where they are, or how, since they do not contribute to production, they come to be putting forward proposals at all. As long as they are in territory where they have no business to be, their excellence as individuals will be overlooked in annoyance at the system which puts them where they are.

It is fortunate indeed, if nothing worse than this happens. For one way of solving the problem of the conflict of rights in industry is not to base rights on functions, as we propose, but to base them on force.

It is to re-establish in some veiled and decorous form the inst.i.tution of slavery, by making labor compulsory. In nearly all countries a concerted refusal to work has been made at one time or another a criminal offense. There are to-day parts of the world in which European capitalists, unchecked by any public opinion or authority {101} independent of themselves, are free to impose almost what terms they please upon workmen of ignorant and helpless races. In those districts of America where capitalism still retains its primitive lawlessness, the same result appears to be produced upon immigrant workmen by the threat of violence.

In such circ.u.mstances the conflict of rights which finds expression in industrial warfare does not arise, because the rights of one party have been extinguished. The simplicity of the remedy is so attractive that it is not surprising that the Governments of industrial nations should coquet from time to time with the policy of compulsory arbitration.

After all, it is pleaded, it is only a.n.a.logous to the action of a supernational authority which should use its common force to prevent the outbreak of war. In reality, compulsory arbitration is the opposite of any policy which such an authority could pursue either with justice or with hope of success. For it takes for granted the stability of existing relations.h.i.+ps and intervenes to adjust incidental disputes upon the a.s.sumption that their equity is recognized and their permanence desired. In industry, however, the equity of existing relations.h.i.+ps is precisely the point at issue. A League of Nations which adjusted between a subject race and its oppressors, between Slavs and Magyars, or the inhabitants of what was once Prussian Poland and the Prussian Government, on the a.s.sumption that the subordination of Slavs to Magyars and Poles to Prussians was part of an unchangeable order, would rightly be resisted by all those who think liberty more precious than peace. A State which, in the {102} name of peace, should make the concerted cessation of work a legal offense would be guilty of a similar betrayal of freedom. It would be solving the conflict of rights between those who own and those who work by abolis.h.i.+ng the rights of those who work.

So here again, unless we are prepared to re-establish some form of forced labor, we reach an impa.s.se. But it is an impa.s.se only in so long as we regard the proprietary rights of those who own the capital used in industry as absolute and an end in themselves. If, instead of a.s.suming that all property, merely because it is property, is equally sacred, we ask what is the _purpose_ for which capital is used, what is its _function_, we shall realize that it is not an end but a means to an end, and that its function is to serve and a.s.sist (as the economists tell us) the labor of human beings, not the function of human beings to serve those who happen to own it. And from this truth two consequences follow. The first is that since capital is a thing, which ought to be used to help industry as a man may use a bicycle to get more quickly to his work, it ought, when it is employed, to be employed on the cheapest terms possible. The second is that those who own it should no more control production than a man who lets a house controls the meals which shall be cooked in the kitchen, or the man who lets a boat the speed at which the rowers shall pull. In other words, capital should always be got at cost price, which means, unless the State finds it wise, as it very well may, to own the capital used in certain industries, it should be paid the lowest interest {103} for which it can be obtained, but should carry no right either to residuary dividends or to the control of industry.

There are, in theory, five ways by which the control of industry by the agents of private property-owners can be terminated. They may be expropriated without compensation. They may voluntarily surrender it.

They may be frozen out by action on the part of the working _personnel_, which itself undertakes such functions, if any, as they have performed, and makes them superfluous by conducting production without their a.s.sistance. Their proprietary interest may be limited or attenuated to such a degree that they become mere _rentiers_, who are guaranteed a fixed payment a.n.a.logous to that of the debenture-holder, but who receive no profits and bear no responsibility for the organization of industry. They may be bought out. The first alternative is exemplified by the historical confiscations of the past, such as, for instance, by the seizure of ecclesiastical property by the ruling cla.s.ses of England, Scotland and most other Protestant states.

The second has rarely, if ever, been tried--the nearest approach to it, perhaps, was the famous abdication of August 4th, 1789. The third is the method apparently contemplated by the building guilds which are now in process of formation in Great Britain. The fourth method of treating the capitalist is followed by the co-operative movement. It is also that proposed by the committee of employers and trade-unionists in the building industry over which Mr. Foster presided, and which proposed that employers should be paid a fixed salary, and a fixed rate of {104} interest on their capital, but that all surplus profits should be pooled and administered by a central body representing employers and workers. The fifth has repeatedly been practised by munic.i.p.alities, and somewhat less often by national governments.

Which of these alternative methods of removing industry from the control of the property-owner is adopted is a matter of expediency to be decided in each particular case. ”Nationalization,” therefore, which is sometimes advanced as the only method of extinguis.h.i.+ng proprietary rights, is merely one species of a considerable genus. It can be used, of course, to produce the desired result. But there are some industries, at any rate, in which nationalization is not necessary in order to bring it about, and since it is at best a c.u.mbrous process, when other methods are possible, other methods should be used.

Nationalization is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Properly conceived its object is not to establish state management of industry, but to remove the dead hand of private owners.h.i.+p, when the private owner has ceased to perform any positive function. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the abolition of obstructive property rights, which is indispensable, should have been identified with a single formula, which may be applied with advantage in the special circ.u.mstances of some industries, but need not necessarily be applied in all. Owners.h.i.+p is not a right, but a bundle of rights, and it is possible to strip them off piecemeal as well as to strike them off simultaneously. The owners.h.i.+p of capital involves, as we have said, three main claims; the right to interest as the price of capital, the right to {105} profits, and the right to control, in virtue of which managers and workmen are the servants of shareholders. These rights in their fullest degree are not the invariable accompaniment of owners.h.i.+p, nor need they necessarily co-exist. The ingenuity of financiers long ago devised methods of grading stock in such a way that the owners.h.i.+p of some carries full control, while that of others does not, that some bear all the risk and are ent.i.tled to all the profits, while others are limited in respect to both. All are property, but not all carry proprietary rights of the same degree.

As long as the private owners.h.i.+p of industrial capital remains, the object of reformers should be to attenuate its influence by insisting that it shall be paid not more than a rate of interest fixed in advance, and that it should carry with it no right of control. In such circ.u.mstances the position of the ordinary shareholder would approximate to that of the owner of debentures; the property in the industry would be converted into a mortgage on its profits, while the control of its administration and all profits in excess of the minimum would remain to be vested elsewhere. So, of course, would the risks.

But risks are of two kinds, those of the individual business and those of the industry. The former are much heavier than the latter, for though a coal mine is a speculative investment, coal mining is not, and as long as each business is managed as a separate unit, the payments made to shareholders must cover both. If the owners.h.i.+p of capital in each industry were unified, which does not mean centralized, those risks which are incidental to individual compet.i.tion would be {106} eliminated, and the credit of each unit would be that of the whole.

Such a change in the character of owners.h.i.+p would have three advantages. It would abolish the government of industry by property.

It would end the payment of profits to functionless shareholders by turning them into creditors paid a fixed rate of interest. It would lay the only possible foundations for industrial peace by making it possible to convert industry into a profession carried on by all grades of workers for the service of the public, not for the gain of those who own capital. The organization which it would produce will be described, of course, as impracticable. It is interesting, therefore, to find it is that which experience has led practical men to suggest as a remedy for the disorders of one of the most important of national industries, that of building. The question before the Committee of employers and workmen, which issued last August a Report upon the Building Trade, was ”Scientific Management and the Reduction of Costs.”[1] These are not phrases which suggest an economic revolution; but it is something little short of a revolution that the signatories of the report propose. For, as soon as they came to grips with the problem, they found that it was impossible to handle it effectively without reconst.i.tuting the general fabric of industrial relations.h.i.+ps which is its setting. Why is the service supplied by the industry ineffective? Partly because the workers do not give their full energies to the performance of their part in production. {107} Why do they not give their best energies? Because of ”the fear of unemployment, the disinclination of the operatives to make unlimited profit for private employers, the lack of interest evinced by operatives owing to their non-partic.i.p.ation in control, inefficiency both managerial and operative.” How are these psychological obstacles to efficiency to be counteracted? By increased supervision and speeding up, by the allurements of a premium bonus system, or the other devices by which men who are too ingenious to have imagination or moral insight would bully or cajole poor human nature into doing what--if only the systems they invent would let it!--it desires to do, simple duties and honest work? Not at all. By turning the building of houses into what teaching now is, and Mr. Squeers thought it could never be, an honorable profession.

”We believe,” they write, ”that the great task of our Industrial Council is to develop an entirely new system of industrial control by the members of the industry itself--the actual producers, whether by hand or brain, and to bring them into co-operation with the State as the central representative of the community whom they are organized to serve.” Instead of unlimited profits, so ”indispensable as an incentive to efficiency,” the employer is to be paid a salary for his services as manager, and a rate of interest on his capital which is to be both fixed and (unless he fails to earn it through his own inefficiency) guaranteed; anything in excess of it, any ”profits” in fact, which in other industries are distributed as dividends to shareholders, he is to {108} surrender to a central fund to be administered by employers and workmen for the benefit of the industry as a whole. Instead of the financial standing of each firm being treated as an inscrutable mystery to the public, with the result that it is sometimes a mystery to itself, there is to be a system of public costing and audit, on the basis of which the industry will a.s.sume a collective liability for those firms which are shown to be competently managed. Instead of the workers being dismissed in slack times to struggle along as best they can, they are to be maintained from a fund raised by a levy on employers and administered by the trade unions.

There is to be publicity as to costs and profits, open dealing and honest work and mutual helpfulness, instead of the compet.i.tion which the nineteenth century regarded as an efficient subst.i.tute for them.

”Capital” is not to ”employ labor.” Labor, which includes managerial labor, is to employ capital; and to employ it at the cheapest rate at which, in the circ.u.mstances of the trade, it can be got. If it employs it so successfully that there is a surplus when it has been fairly paid for its own services, then that surplus is not to be divided among shareholders, for, when they have been paid interest, they have been paid their due; it is to be used to equip the industry to provide still more effective service in the future.

So here we have the majority of a body of practical men, who care nothing for socialist theories, proposing to establish ”organized Public Service in the Building Industry,” recommending, in short, that their industry shall be turned into a profession. And they do it, it {109} will be observed, by just that functional organization, just that conversion of full proprietary rights into a mortgage secured (as far as efficient firms are concerned) on the industry as a whole, just that transference of the control of production from the owner of capital to those whose business is production, which we saw is necessary if industry is to be organized for the performance of service, not for the pecuniary advantage of those who hold proprietary rights. Their Report is of the first importance as offering a policy for attenuating private property in capital in the important group of industries in which private owners.h.i.+p, in one form or another, is likely for some considerable time to continue, and a valuable service would be rendered by any one who would work out in detail the application of its principle to other trades.

Not, of course, that this is the only way, or in highly capitalized industries the most feasible way, in which the change can be brought about. Had the movement against the control of production by property taken place before the rise of limited companies, in which owners.h.i.+p is separated from management, the transition to the organization of industry as a profession might also have taken place, as the employers and workmen in the building trade propose that it should, by limiting the rights of private owners.h.i.+p without abolis.h.i.+ng it. But that is not what has actually happened, and therefore the proposals of the building trade are not of universal application. It is possible to retain private owners.h.i.+p in building and in industries like building, {110} while changing its character, precisely because in building the employer is normally not merely an owner, but something else as well.

He is a manager; that is, he is a workman. And because he is a workman, whose interests, and still more whose professional spirit as a workman may often outweigh his interests and merely financial spirit as an owner, he can form part of the productive organization of the industry, after his rights as an owner have been trimmed and limited.

But that dual position is abnormal, and in the highly organized industries is becoming more abnormal every year. In coal, in cotton, in s.h.i.+p-building, in many branches of engineering the owner of capital is not, as he is in building, an organizer or manager. His connection with the industry and interest in it is purely financial. He is an owner and nothing more. And because his interest is merely financial, so that his concern is dividends and production only as a means to dividends, he cannot be worked into an organization of industry which vests administration in a body representing all grades of producers, or producers and consumers together, for he has no purpose in common with them; so that while joint councils between workers and managers may succeed, joint councils between workers and owners or agents of owners, like most of the so-called Whitley Councils, will not, because the necessity for the mere owner is itself one of the points in dispute.

The master builder, who owns the capital used, can be included, not _qua_ capitalist, but _qua_ builder, if he surrenders some of the rights of owners.h.i.+p, as the Building Industry Committee proposed that he should. But {111} if the shareholder in a colliery or a s.h.i.+pyard abdicates the control and unlimited profits to which, _qua_ capitalist, he is at present ent.i.tled, he abdicates everything that makes him what he is, and has no other standing in the industry. He cannot share, like the master builder, in its management, because he has no qualifications which would enable him to do so. His object is profit; and if industry is to become, as employers and workers in the building trade propose, an ”organized public service,” then its subordination to the shareholder whose object is profit, is, as they clearly see, precisely what must be eliminated. The master builders propose to give it up. They can do so because they have their place in the industry in virtue of their function as workmen. But if the shareholder gave it up, he would have no place at all.

Hence in coal mining, where owners.h.i.+p and management are sharply separated, the owners will not admit the bare possibility of any system in which the control of the administration of the mines is shared between the management and the miners. ”I am authorized to state on behalf of the Mining a.s.sociation,” Lord Gainford, the chief witness on behalf of the mine-owners, informed the Coal Commission, ”that if the owners are not to be left complete executive control they will decline to accept the responsibility for carrying on the industry.”[2] So the mine-owners blow away in a sentence the whole body of plausible make-believe which rests on the idea that, while private owners.h.i.+p remains {112} unaltered, industrial harmony can be produced by the magic formula of joint control. And they are right. The representatives of workmen and shareholders, in mining and in other industries, can meet and negotiate and discuss. But joint administration of the shareholders' property by a body representing shareholders and workmen is impossible, because there is no purpose in common between them. For the only purpose which could unite all persons engaged in industry, and overrule their particular and divergent interests, is the provision of service. And the object of shareholders, the whole significance and _metier_ of industry to them, is not the provision of service but the provision of dividends.

In industries where management is divorced from owners.h.i.+p, as in most of the highly organized trades it is to-day, there is no obvious halfway house, therefore, between the retention of the present system and the complete extrusion of the capitalist from the control of production. The change in the character of owners.h.i.+p, which is necessary in order that coal or textiles and s.h.i.+p-building may be organized as professions for the service of the public, cannot easily spring from within. The stroke needed to liberate them from the control of the property-owner must come from without. In theory it might be struck by action on the part of organized workers, who would abolish residuary profits and the right of control by the mere procedure of refusing to work as long as they were maintained, on the historical a.n.a.logy offered by peasants who have destroyed {113} predatory property in the past by declining to pay its dues and admit its government, in which case Parliament would intervene only to register the community's a.s.sent to the _fait accompli_. In practice, however, the conditions of modern industry being what they are, that course, apart from its other disadvantages, is so unlikely to be attempted, or, if attempted, to succeed, that it can be neglected. The alternative to it is that the change in the character of property should be affected by legislation in virtue of which the rights of owners.h.i.+p in an industry are bought out simultaneously.

In either case, though the procedure is different, the result of the change, once it is accomplished, is the same. Private property in capital, in the sense of the right to profits and control, is abolished. What remains of it is, at most, a mortgage in favor of the previous proprietors, a dead leaf which is preserved, though the sap of industry no longer feeds it, as long as it is not thought worth while to strike it off. And since the capital needed to maintain and equip a modern industry could not be provided by any one group of workers, even were it desirable on other grounds that they should step completely into the position of the present owners, the complex of rights which const.i.tutes owners.h.i.+p remains to be shared between them and whatever organ may act on behalf of the general community. The former, for example, may be the heir of the present owners as far as the control of the routine and administration of industry is concerned: the latter may succeed to their right to dispose of residuary profits. The elements composing property, have, in fact, to be {114} disentangled: and the fact that to-day, under the common name of owners.h.i.+p, several different powers are vested in identical hands, must not be allowed to obscure the probability that, once private property in capital has been abolished, it may be expedient to re-allocate those powers in detail as well as to transfer them _en bloc_.

The essence of a profession is, as we have suggested, that its members organize themselves for the performance of function. It is essential therefore, if industry is to be professionalized, that the abolition of functionless property should not be interpreted to imply a continuance under public owners.h.i.+p of the absence of responsibility on the part of the _personnel_ of industry, which is the normal accompaniment of private owners.h.i.+p working through the wage-system. It is the more important to emphasize that point, because such an implication has sometimes been conveyed in the past by some of those who have presented the case for some such change in the character of owners.h.i.+p as has been urged above. The name consecrated by custom to the transformation of property by public and external action is nationalization. But nationalization is a word which is neither very felicitous nor free from ambiguity. Properly used, it means merely owners.h.i.+p by a body representing the nation. But it has come in practice to be used as equivalent to a particular method of administration, under which officials employed by the State step into the position of the present directors of industry, and exercise all the power which they exercised.

So those who desire to maintain the system under which industry is carried on, not as a profession {115} serving the public, but for the advantage of shareholders, attack nationalization on the ground that state management is necessarily inefficient, and tremble with apprehension whenever they post a letter in a letter-box; and those who desire to change it reply that state services are efficient and praise G.o.d whenever they use a telephone; as though either private or public administration had certain peculiar and unalterable characteristics, instead of depending for its quality, like an army or railway company or school, and all other undertakings, public and private alike, not on whether those who conduct it are private officials or state officials, but on whether they are properly trained for their work and can command the good will and confidence of their subordinates.

<script>