THE OTHER SIDE.
.ORD LEVERHULME is an excellent advocate in the cause of capital. He is a great capitalist himself, who, so far as I know, has contrived to avoid some of the worst features of capitalism, and to en- courage some a the best. Many of us remember him as a -good friend of the eight hours' movement in the Parliament of 1906. His own great industry did not spring out of the swamp of long hours and low wages, or the devil-may-care inhumanity on which the indict- ment of the system has been built up. And it is both natural and clever of him to find, in the kindred spirit of the philanthropic Mr. Ford, a satisfying . model of what the great entrepreneur ought to be.
But before I deal with Lord Leverhulme's Conception of capitalism, I should like to clear away a misunder- standing. It is not a fact that the school of Political Economy on which Labour relies is unaware of the public utility of Mr. Ford, still less that it regards him as"a social pestilence." There are types of capitalist enterprise which may be so described. Mr. Ford's is not one of them. And it is perfectly true, and the truth is well recognized, that between his form of production and the work of the creative artist there exists the affinity that Lord Leverhulme describes. Ford does not seize a gift of nature (like oil), and crudely exploit and monopolize it, using his acquired money-force to drive out the lesser producer and dealer, and making a desert of their field of industry. He addresses himself to an indispensable need of American society, and ministers to it in an original and interesting way. He not only stimulates a new, healthy demand, but he encourages all classes to contribute to it. In a word, he is a vitalizer. Why, then, should Labour think of Mr. Ford as if he were a disease ? On the contrary, he is a sign to it of a return to social health. He has nationalized a little bit of America's unrealized stock of leisure, health, and culture, including that which he throws open to his own workers by way of the six hours' labour day. He is even the rival of the luxury-caterer, for in the wake of the cheap motor and the cheap tractor follows the conception of a democratic State, with a wide distribution or moderate wealth, and a fair chance for agriculture, mother of men's industries. This is no culture of " illth," and in itself involves no necessary disregard of the human factor in production. So clearly is this perceived that, in spite of his attitude to Trade Unionism, I am assured that if Mr. Ford becomes a candi- date for the Presidency of the United States, large bodies of workmen and farmers are likely to vote for him.
Nevertheless, there are points in Lord Leverhulme's analysis even of the Ford type of industry and its reward which suggest that there is something in it unstated, or wrongly stated. And there is an admission in it which makes a deep cut into the capitalist case. The usual contention is that the hope of profit—and of large, overflowing profit—is the grand lure which draws the man of ideas and initiative into the industrial process, • and that its presence is necessary in order to sustain and increase production. Lord Leverhulme shows that there are other motives to production, which precede and may even dominate the profit-making one. Ford, he tells us, • is of the artist type of producer, and, in sign of his profession, he takes the artist's guerdon.
• See especially Mr. J. A. Hobson's hook Work and IVealtA : a Hansa Valuation (Macmillan). Mr. Hobson thinks that industries in which the creative aud inventive element predominates had better be left to Individual enterprise, For though "he practically chains himself as a galley- slave to the life he has adopted," this galley-slave existence "sends a thrill of pleasure through his frame that no galley-slave of the old Roman days could possibly feel." Exactly. Ford has taken the artist's wage, which is no other than the poet's "glory of going on," finding, in this spiritual satisfaction, a sufficient incentive to further effort, as well as an agreeable alternative to the pleasures of idleness. This reward may have the further merit that in so far as the system in Ford's factories enables the workers to rise above the depression of pure routine, and to attain to a feeling and sense of co-operation with the directing spirit, they may in some measure share it with hint. It is therefore an antidote, to ea' canny.
But the sense of artistic satisfaction proves to be only one of the fortunate Mr. Ford's rewards. There is a second, and a more substantial, remuneration. The profits of the Ford industry, says Lord Leverhulme, may be ten or even twenty millions a year, a sum far beyond anything that even the successful artist can aspire to in the shape of material wages. Now this, when added on to (a) the artist's self-approval and his delight in the practice of his art ; (b) public fame and applause and consciousness of social service ; (c) the gratification derived from the sense of power and the act of controlling a vast machinery of production and a great number of human beings, does give Mr. Ford an extraordinary eminence among the recipients of this world's favours. In a word, Mr. Ford does pretty well. And what is the origin of this super-profit ? Some portion of Mr. Ford's return does indubitably arise from the purchase of a great mass of human labour at a low price, and the sale of its product at a higher. Another part may reasonably be said to derive from monopoly, for, admirable as a Ford car may be, it can hardly be the last word of perfection in the world of motor-cars. There may be ideal cars in the minds of mute inglorious Fords which the strength of the Ford organization will keep off the market till their inventor gives it up or dies of heartbreak.
The true criticism of the capitalist system is that Ford is by no means a characteristic figure, as Lord Leverhulme's article suggests, but rather one of its freaks. There are no limits to man's discovery power, and it should yield us, if it had fair play, not one Ford in a blue moon, but many Fords. But invention is the fruit of leisure, of the power of men to make a free disposal of their time for the higher processes of contemplation and reflection, of thinking things out and over.* And this opportunity is denied to the routine worker, that is, to the mass of the employees of capitalism. Under the six hours' system Mr. Ford does, no doubt, eliminate a good deal of its dull, monotonous, prolonged drive of muscle and limb. But I am not aware that his scheme of management allows of any form of co-operation between its directing intelli- gence and the manual workers. The protective and regulative function of Trade Unionism is also cut out, on the ground that the Ford rates being above Trade Union rates, no such control is necessary. In its absence the Ford plan of industrial life is bound to rest on a broad foundation of arbitrary power. That is benevolent despotism, if you like. But it is despotism extending, unless common report in the States belies him, to a fairly close inquisition into the habits and even the private morals of his workers. He gives orders ; they obey them., Ile thinks ; they work. He organizes their way of life ; they accept it. To sum up. If the soul of America could be saved • See Work and Wealth, Ch. XV, by feeding it with one motor-car a minute, all would indeed be well with her. But the real question is—what space • does the idealist figure of Ford occupy in the vast scene of economic oppression, of the waste of human life and the devastation of natural resources, of pitiless war on consumers and small producers, which denote the march of the great Trusts and unified industries through the continent of America ? He had a magnificent trade idea. At the critical hour he caught the American worker's imperative need for quick locomotion, supplied it at a low monopoly price, and standardized his invention on a scale and with a masterly thoroughness which beats the record of such achievements, and defies com- petition. In the process of realizing this thought of his he has made no slums, cut down no forests, and poisoned no rivers. All praise to him. He does not infect the minds of millions, as do our syndicalist news- paper proprietors, and their like in the United States, for every Sabbath day that dawns. All praise to him. His workers' children do not soak in city slime ; nor are their fathers flung on the scrap-heap before their time, victims of alcoholism, overwork, of premature age and preventable disease. All praise to him. But the unreformed rest of the capitalist system remains, and these being some of its works, it would be interesting to know what Lord Leverhulme proposes to do about it.
Previous page
