The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, February 15, 1938. THE ETHICS OF CAPITALISM

Grey River Argus, 15 February 1938, Page 4

The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, February 15, 1938. THE ETHICS OF CAPITALISM

Without attempting to justify the idea that the workers should forego a larger surplus out of the product of their labour, the critics (of the 40 hour week, and other recent legislation to improve working conditions, declare that the community is penalised thereby. In Australia these critics find countenance in a statement by an Arbitration Court Judge that no betterment of the lot of the wage earner is possible except at the expense of others. In considering this matter, sight is too often lost of the fact that the employers hold the whip hand, and that unless they profit out of labour, they will not employ it. It is on the basis of industrialism that calculations are made, the typical unit being a factory or a system of transport. The vast majority of operatives have practically no property, and certainly no productive property. Their existence depends on their wage. The wage must be less than the product of the labour for which it is paid. Thus work is undertaken primarily for the advantage of the employer, and not that either of the community or of the workers. The smaller the wage, the greater the profit. Is it not therefore a self-evident fact that the system of capitalistic industrialism makes it the worker’s advantage to do as little work as possible' for as much money as possible? It is only “kidney pie” for the apologists of capitalism to tell the workers that it is for the community that they labour. Why do they not point out equally as -clearly that the advantage of the capitalistic employer, who is generally an entire stranger to his employee, is to give the worker as little money as possible for doing as much work as possible? Ths worker may aim at shortening hours or at reducing pressure during working hours, or at a higher wage for existing hours, but that is the very thing which industrial capitalism sets before him as the only advan. tage which he can gain so long as he has no other interest in the thing than wages. For news papers, or politicians to complain that the ultimate effect of this logical urge upon the workers is a reduction in production is ad mittedly to point out what is already obvious. But why not point out the converse of the proposition? Why not, at least, admit that the attempt to extract more for a given wage or to reduce wages is an attempt to get something for nothing? Is it any advantage for the worker to produce as much as possible? This is only another way of asking whether increased profit compensates for decreased wages. It may readily be granted that, with the use of improved machinery., lessened labour (indeed fewer workers) will give the machinery owner more than he gets before labour is reduced. Organisation and scientific work play their part in this increased productivity of labour, but the pay for such work and organisation tends inevitably to become merely a wage-. More than ever is that man becoming an exception who individually looks after his business and employs labour. Nearly the whole of the labour in industry, and especially in the business of companies, is proletarian or wage labour. Hence the paradox that he who actually produces wealth is driven by purely commercial motives not to produce, or, in other words, to produce the minimum. A whole lot of people, and particularly Nationalist politicians on a soap box campaign, use pious language in speaking of the capitalist system. Well, they ought to see clearly that it is a system which puts a premium on tapering off production, and, as such, a system destined inevitably .to break down in the long run. Its breakdown breeds another thing. It breeds industrial slavery, unless, of course, it shall eventually be diverted in another direction, namely, toward the participation by the worker in ownership of the means of pro--11 auction, distribution and ex

change. Industrial capitalism has fooled mankind. At, the outset men can live under it. and those who profit by it regard it as permanent, but it does not need the thesis of Major Douglas to demonstrate that, it cannot possibly lead to the better times which, like a carrot, are dangled before the eyes of the proletariat. The better times so far as capitalism is concerned are the times that have passed away! The term during which the system can expand and flourish is limited, and older countries already afford proofs in plenty of this fact. If the cost of production is raised, it is not the worker, but the system. that is to blame.