Notes by the Way: Starvation as an Incentive. (1941)

The Notes by the Way Column from the June 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Starvation as an Incentive.

Correspondence has been going on in The Times as to whether it is possible to run industry without the profit motive. One contributor, Sir Francis Lindley, maintained that the great majority of the human race, when not enslaved, have worked for profit. To which Mr. Julian Huxley replied, pointing out (April 29th, 1941) that “the great majority of men in primitive societies worked for subsistence, and in advanced societies for wages or salaries.”

Some remarks made recently by Mr. Bevin, Minister of Labour, have bearing on this capitalist illusion that workers work because of the prospect of making a profit. Speaking in the House of Commons on April 2nd, Mr. Bevin referred to an M.P. who had said that industry relies on the power of dismissal to maintain discipline. Then he continued : —

“What does that mean ? It means that there is an economic drive on the workman to work, the ability to force your will on another by the imposition of starvation, which inculcates fear and resentment in the other man’s mind. That means that the basic condition upon which your system is run has been starvation or the ability to make another citizen unemployed. Well, that has meant war.”

Speaking on the same subject in a broadcast to America, reported in the Daily Herald (April 26th, 1941), he claimed that experience had shown that an improvement takes place when the threat of the sack is removed: —

“A factor that is becoming apparent is you get better discipline and loyalty with fear of dismissal removed than you do by the threat of it.”

If this improvement can take place under existing conditions, it is an indication of what would be possible when, under Socialism, production is carried on solely for the common good.

The Sunday Express (March 30th, 1941) published a story showing the capacity of the workers to carry on production in the absence of the employer. The latter, an Italian, was interned for nine months, and while he was away ‘his British employees have been running his factory admirably.’ The absent employer, who has not yet been permitted to visit his factory, received a letter from his 200 employees assuring him ‘that they would carry on in my interests until I was able to take charge again.'”

He remarks: “They have done magnificently.”

* * * *

Why the Workers Save

The Times (April 21st 1941) published an article based on first-hand knowledge of the workers’ attitude towards the Government savings campaign. The writer comments on the fact that many workers save in order to be able to face the anticipated depression after the war. “A majority of the working-class expect hard times after the war,” he writes, and quotes a Bradford weaver, who said : —

“I think there’ll be a big slump. I was in t’last slump; it was a terrible time. People didn’t save anything. I was always telling them, if it’s only two or three shillings, don’t spend more than you need. If it’s anything like the last, God help them.”

The naive writer of the article is rather surprised to learn that the attitude of the workers towards saving is not like that of the capitalist: —

“It is only in a very few instances that a working man is putting by money as a form of capital accumulation, which will eventually enable him to invest in property or become a small trader. Most often saving is a form of insurance against known contingencies : marriage, sickness, death, unemployment, old age, hard times . . . even at the poverty level families frequently save, at the expense of their elementary subsistence needs . . . ”—(The Times, April 21st, 1941.)

In short, the capitalist saves out of his superfluity in order to accumulate capital; the worker saves out of his insufficiency in order to protect himself against capitalism and the capitalist.

* * * *

Re-assuring the U.S.A.

One of the questions Mr. Wendell Willkie kept asking while in this country was: “Is it true England is going Red?” The answers he received must have convinced him that he had been somewhat misinformed.—(News-Chronicle, February 25th, 1941.)

“To suggest Britain will go Communist, Socialist or Totalitarian, is fantastic.”—Lord Halifax (News-Chronicle, April 4th, 1941).

* * * *

Catholicism and the Social Order

In a letter to the Manchester Guardian (May I7th, 1941), a director of the Catholic Social Guild summarised the declarations made by the Papacy on social problems. He stated that it is 50 years since Pope Leo XIII protested against the maldistribution of wealth by which “a few very rich men lay upon the labouring poor a yoke little better than slavery.” Leo, and later on Pius XI, “laid the blame on economic liberalism and opportunist politics by which social and political relationships were divorced from morality.”

The Catholic Church nowadays, while condemning socialism, also condemns capitalism, and makes the claim that the Catholic proposals are a practicable and superior alternative. It is a fair criticism to point out that within the half-century since Leo’s declaration there have been long periods during which professedly Catholic governments have ruled over predominantly Catholic countries. Spain and Italy are two examples. Can it be said that these countries have been In any way superior to other capitalist countries from the standpoint of social relationship? The Catholic authorities in those countries did not get rid of capitalism and did not rescue the labouring poor from their yoke of slavery to the rich. Indeed, some at least of the Italian and Spanish workers have gained the impression that the Catholic Church was as much interested in maintaining’ capitalism as any of the non-Catholic governments.

As for the point about political relationship being based on morality, it is interesting to see The Times (March 1st, 1941) stating that the late King Alfonso of Spain, and the Spanish Dictator General Primo de Rivera—both of them Catholics—”had undoubtedly violated the Constitution of the Realm, and their enemies made a particular point of the fact that King Alfonso had broken his oath to respect it.”

Edgar Hardcastle