Letter: Capitalism and Labour-Saving Machinery (1955)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

(We have received the following letter from a critic. Our reply follows—Ed. Comm.)

The Editor Socialist Standard

The article, “The Automatic Factory” in current issue of the Standard is merely demonstrating that the advantage of labour-saving machinery is offset by the fact that considerable labour is required in making and installing the machine and subsequently maintaining it and the overall saving of labour is not so great as at first appears. Yet there must be some saving of labour or the Capitalist class would not introduce it.

Will the writer tell us what is the percentage of working-class labour-power devoted to producing the essentials people really need and will still need under Socialism, contrasted with the percentage of this labour-power devoted to maintaining and defending Capitalism which percentage, from a Socialist viewpoint, is sheer waste. Will he also tell us how the first percentage is falling and the second increasing with the passing years. Perhaps that overall picture, whale not so big as it first appears, is not so small is the article suggests.

However, as Capitalism’s powers of production are in the main Capitalism's powers of destruction, it may be instructive to compare the violence of war now with the violence of war 50 years ago when the Socialist Party began telling us that with an intelligent use of such powers of production which only then existed there would be leisure and abundance for everyone.

A Socialist's best argument against Capitalism is that Capitalism is uneconomic, an argument which seems to be forgotten by Socialists nowadays. When are you going to start fighting Capitalism and cease apologising for it?

Yours fraternally, 

E. Carnell.

Reply:

As our critic says, the article showed that the saving of labour through labour-saving machinery is much smaller than is supposed by those who take a superficial view. The evidence shows that the overall increase of productivity for Britain is of the order of 1 per cent—2 per cent. a year over a period of years. If this surprises our critic it may be that he has not appreciated the point (referred to in the article) that the periodical jump for a particular industry will be much larger but it does not happen every year. The point is that firms do not scrap all their old machinery and instal new machinery each year. To do so would be a waste of labour on an enormous scale and they could not afford to do it. They must, in order to realise capital invested in the machine, wait until at least a considerable part of the machine's working life has been exhausted.

If each firm were to instal improved machinery each 20 years, with a 20 per cent. real increase of productivity, the average increase for each firm and for all firms would be 1 per cent. a year over the 20 years, or longer period.

If our critic thinks he knows of evidence that the rate of increase of productivity is larger than the figures given he should produce it. Two men well qualified to handle this problem are Colin Clark and C. F. Carter. In a recent article in the Financial Times (7/2/55) Colin Clark quoted C. F. Carter's estimate of a rise of productivity per man hour worked of 15 pet cent between 1937 and 1953, which, as Clark said, is "well below 1 per cent. per year as a long period of improvement," but he added that his own estimate “ would be nearer zero.”

We are asked for figures showing how many workers are engaged on producing the essentials people will need under Socialism and how many are working at activities essential only to Capitalism. We know of no official figures published in that form or in a form from which a direct answer can be obtained. A rough estimate made in the pamphlet "Socialism,” published by the S.P.G.B. (to which our critic is referred), reached the conclusion that “the whole of the nation's wealth can be produced by the male population between 16 and 60 years of age working half the time they do now.” This was based on the 1921 census figures and later figures might strengthen the case, but the change is not likely to be considerable. The population, the number of workers actually at work, and total output, have all increased since then and while there are larger numbers in the Armed Forces and armaments industries the numbers in many other industries have also increased. The peace-time expenditure on armaments and armed forces has grown from about 4 per cent. of national income in 1904 to about 10 per cent. now. (See article “Fifty Years Progress, S.S. February 1955).

The Socialist case that the only way to abolish poverty is to abolish Capitalism and establish Socialism is still as true as it was when the S.P.G.B. first put it forward. It is still true that waiting on real or imaginary marvels of technical development of industry will get the workers nowhere. And it is still true that an intelligent use of the powers of production that exist would bring about the very great increase in the production of wealth indicated in the pamphlet “Socialism” referred to above.

Who are the Socialists who are supposed to have forgotten this our critic does not say. Certainly it is not the S.P.G.B., which has been putting this case for over half a century.

Ed. Comm