Owen, of course, was not the only industrial capitalist to identify that, increasingly, the labourer was the most important element of production, and that ensuring the welfare of their workers represented enlightened self-interest. Some of that enlightenment stemmed from religious beliefs, such as with the Quakers. Families such as the Frys, Cadburys, Rowntrees, Levers, and so on, saw that providing their workers with decent houses, schools, and so on raised the productivity of those workers, and so, also, raised their profits. Firms in the US, also, engaged in similar acts of company welfarism, adopted, also, by Ford.
As Lenin noted, in his polemics against the Narodniks, even in Russia, this same paternalism and philanthropy was to be found. It did not change the fundamental class relations. In Prussia, it was the state that undertook this role, even in the early 19th century, and, as Chancellor, Bismark introduced the same ideas of welfarism and National Insurance.
Owen was the precursor of the later functioning capitalists. He was a professional manager, and, in that role, applied his theories, much as happened, in the early 20th century, with the Taylorists.
“He had already tried it with success in Manchester, as the manager of a factory with 500 workers. From 1800 to 1829, he directed the great cotton-mill of New Lanark, in Scotland, as managing partner, along the same lines, but with greater freedom of action and with a success that won him a European reputation. He transformed a population, which originally consisted of the most diverse and, for the most part, very demoralised elements, and which gradually grew to 2,500, into a model colony, in which drunkenness, police, magistrates, lawsuits, poor law relief, and any need for charity were unknown. All this simply by placing the people in conditions worthy of human beings, and especially by having the rising generation carefully brought up. He was the inventor of infant schools, and first introduced them at New Lanark. From the age of two the children came to school, where they enjoyed themselves so much that they could scarcely be got home again. Whilst his competitors worked their people thirteen to fourteen hours a day, in New Lanark the working-day was only ten and a half hours. When a crisis in cotton stopped work for four months, his unemployed workers received their full wages all the time. Yet the business more than doubled in value, and to the last yielded large profits to its proprietors.” (p 336-7)
The point, here, was that these factories were still the property of private capitalists, and the measures introduced to improve the lot of the workers, which raised their productivity, were still for the benefit of those owners. It illustrates the material basis of social-democracy and welfarism. When these same welfarist measures are undertaken by the capitalist state, the purpose remains the same, i.e. to raise productivity and efficiency, to regulate the supply of labour-power, and, thereby, to boost profits and the accumulation of capital.
By the mid 19th century, a number of factories had failed and been taken over by their workers, who ran them as cooperatives. The former private owners were often employed by the workers as managers on salaries a fraction of what they previously paid themselves. Yet, as Marx describes in Capital, these cooperatives were, generally, more efficient and profitable than equivalent privately owned firms. As a preview of what was to come, however, these cooperatives were charged higher rates of interest by banks, when they borrowed. Increasingly, as the private capitalists retreated from their functional role in production, and became merely money-lending capitalists, the more this became the means of the ruling class obtaining its revenues. It relied no longer on industrial profit, but on interest.
The significance of that change cannot be overstated, given the antagonistic and contradictory interests of industrial capital as against that of interest-bearing capital (fictitious-capital).
No comments:
Post a Comment