Mr. Hodgson throws up the sponge.
We have received a letter from Mr. J. L. Hodgson referring to the article and reply to him published in the September Socialist Standard. Mr. Hodgson's letter is as follows : —
Eggington, Beds.September 3rd, 1934.To the Editor of the Socialist Standard.
Dear Sir,On page 6 of your issue of September 6th you say that my theory of constant nullification of rapidly increasing productivity demands evidence of rapidly increasing waste outside industry. In my book, and in the summarised list of communal wastes which I give in your August issue, I have indicated some of these rapidly increasing wastes for those who care to note them. I would add to the list previously given (1) many of the complex ways of doing quite simple things which the engineer is, under the existing system, continually compelled to devise, and (2) the increasing amount of time devoted to political controversy and its various reactions. ,
On page 7 you ask how I propose to distribute purchasing power (in goods) as a gift without taking it (goods) away from those who have it (them). Again I reply for the last time, “By reducing the leaks,” i.e., the communal wastes. When you feed fish, that would otherwise be thrown back into the sea, to starving people, you don't “take away” from those previously privileged to enjoy the fish that the present system allows to be distributed.Yours faithfully,John L. Hodgson
Reply.
While, in form, Mr. Hodgson’s letter is an attempt to answer the criticisms made of his arguments, its omissions indicate clearly enough that Mr. Hodgson is totally unable to provide the evidence to back up his claims.
He completely ignores the request that has now been repeated about half a dozen times for evidence of output per man increasing “ from 50 to 3,000 times,” and ignores the challenge for evidence of rapidly increasing waste. Instead, he offers us a simple list of items of waste, without the slightest attempt to evaluate them and show that they are, in fact, rapidly increasing. The list was published in the August Socialist Standard (page 185). It includes the following: mass unemployment, strikes, lack of zeal on the part of the workers, “ most advertising activities,” exports not paid for, “most ticket-collecting,” etc. Mr. Hodgson affects to believe that the mere mention of these forms of real or alleged waste is sufficient to prove his claim that waste is increasing with stupendous rapidity. (How stupendous can be gauged from Mr. Hodgson’s contentions that productivity has increased “from 50 to 3,000 times,” and that the increase of waste swallows up nine-tenths of the increase). The answer to Mr. Hodgson is that there is not the slightest reason to believe that these forms of waste, in the aggregate, are increasing at more than a very slow rate (if at all) in relation to the amount of wealth produced. Some of the most important items are known to be decreasing at the present time. The number of strikes and their duration have declined very substantially during the past 30 years. Ticket-collecting and advertising may be increasing, but any increase is trivial in relation to the alleged stupendous increase in output claimed by Mr. Hodgson. Exports not paid for may be waste from the point of view of the exporting capitalist, but that loss is offset by the gain to the foreign buyers who did not pay. Lastly, unemployment is not only less than it was a year ago, here and all over the world, but is less than it was at the peak of the crisis 12 years ago. And this is the kind of material Mr. Hodgson says is evidence of rapidly increasing waste! The only explanation is that Mr. Hodgson must have worked out his other estimates as he did his estimate of unemployment, by calmly adding in the ” temporarily stopped ” workers twice.
Mr. Hodgson now explains how he is going to distribute purchasing power without taking it away from those who have it. His explanation is that goods which would otherwise be destroyed will be given to the starving. The first point Mr. Hodgson overlooks is that goods destroyed by capitalists are their own private property. The second point is that they have a very real interest in destroying them as against giving them away.
The destruction of fish when the market is glutted prevents prices from being forced down. If the fish were given away to the unemployed, they would, of course, immediately stop spending any of the unemployment pay on buying fish, to the obvious detriment of the interests of the fish owners. The latter will therefore strenuously object to Mr. Hodgson's plan to deprive them of their property, for the reason we have previously given and which Mr. Hodgson has hitherto denied, i.e., that distributing purchasing power to those who lack it means taking it away from those who have it.
It may be useful, in conclusion, to summarise the major points of this controversy. Mr. Hodgson claims, but declines to give evidence of, a vast general increase of productivity per head. He also fails to give evidence either of a considerable increase in the total output of industry, or of a considerable decrease in the number of workers required to produce the former volume of output. Lastly, he asks us to take his word that there is a stupendous increase of waste, but here again he declines to produce evidence.
If Mr. Hodgson ever thinks he is able to produce evidence in support of any of these claims our columns are, of course, open to him.
Ed. Comm.
No comments:
Post a Comment