[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.") SIR, —In the eternal
controversy between Capital and Labour it seems to me that the apologists for the former fail to recog- nize, or at any rate ignore, the one aspect Of the problem which looms so largely in the eyes of the working man. He sees the enormous and, to him, unjustifiable difference between the price which he receives for his labour and that which the consumer has to pay to obtain the result of it. Capital goes on harping on the fact that if wages are high then so also must be the price to the consumer. This is but a half truth, and so obviously so that it can deceive no one who gives the matter a moment's impartial consideration. The worker is perfectly aware that if wages go up the price will follow. But what lie denies is that the difference need be anything like what it is. According to the code of business ethics which obtains lie is probably wrong. But the worker declines to accept the existing code as either inevitable, necessary, or even desirable, still less inspired.
True, Labour is shy of incurring those risks which Capital has to undertake: that is a weighty argument on the other side. But it by no means meets the whole ease. Every business man knows that, generally speaking, he demands the uttermost farthing for his wares that the market will stand. Is it not. then, illogical that ho should cry out when Labour—without having had the same opportunities for taking broad views that he has—should do the same. However, my object in writing is to induce you, Sir, if I can, to discuss this neglected feature of a difficult problem in your columns, so that Labour may feel that its views are adequately countered, if that be possible, or, at any rate, that they are not burked.—I am, Sir, de.,
Cross Lane, Ticchurst, Sussex. A. &ADE 334/CFR.
Previous page
