Centralised Control
It is when it comes to the planning of the machinery that A National Pqjicy for Industry at once finds itself on difficult ground. Much of what it requires would doubtless become necessary under any reconstruction policy, whether under Socialism, or Capitalist Democracy, or a compromise between the two. If we assume, as this manifesto does, that we must pursue the traditional road of evolu- tionary progress, then those who have realised the importance of rationalisation will find it difficult to resist the argument for sectional associations of industry ; and the evidence of the coal industry—to take a single example—suggests that it might be impossible to make such associations effective unless individual concerns are compelled to join them. (Are we not already on the slippery slope away from laissez-faire?) From .the formation of such sectional organisations the next logical step is that put forward—the setting up of a Central Council of Industry representative of the whole of industry. Even though at every stage of the argument we are reminded of the duty to serve all sections of the nation, including consumers, uneasiness grows when we consider the vast powers it is proposed to confer on this Central Council of Industry, notwithstanding there lies behind it an Industrial Tribunal appointed by the Government to which appeals maybe made. We seem to be approaching the formation of a State within a State, with the captains of industry as benevolent rulers. Here indeed is an alternative to the Socialism of the Socialists ; but under it, with the controls imposed from within, what is happening to that private enterprise, that individualinitiative, which ex hypothesi were so essential to efficiency? The case for so much control comes rather near being a case for State control— in some industries at any rate.
Previous page
