Psychologist’s dilemma

The following point was raised at the conference, last year, of the British Association. “Industrial psychologists must stop messing about with tricky bonus schemes and find out why a man, after a hard day’ work went home and enjoyed digging in his garden.” (Mr. Nigel Balchin quoted in News Chronicle, 15/9/48.) The problem raised by Mr. Balchin has been studied extensively by Socialists. So has the question why the worker lacks enthusiasm for work in his master’s factory.

To find an answer to both questions it is necessary to examine the relationship of the worker towards his master’s factory and his relationship towards his garden. In capitalist society, there are two classes: the capitalist class, which owns the means of production and the working class which in consequence is propertyless in the means of production. Goods and services are produced for sale in order that a surplus may be realised, i.e., the products take the form of commodities. Capitalists derive their incomes from this surplus. From it, rent is paid for land, and interest on loans. As food, clothing and shelter is sold and the worker does not own the means of production, how does he obtain his livelihood? He sells the only commodity he has; his mental and physical energy. The worker is employed on condition be produces values greater than that of his wage. He does not own any of the products of his labour, nor does he decide their disposal. He does not work for himself, but for his master. It is that factor above all which must be borne in mind.

There are also other factors. Many workers remember the days of unemployment when they were destitute, not because of scarcity, but because they had produced too much. Another feature of capitalism is the division of labour. “Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack that is required of him.” (“Communist Manifesto,” p.66, S.P.G.B. edition.) This was written by Marx and Engels a century ago. Since then, the division of labour has been intensified and the monotony and toil increased.

Now it is the relationship of the worker towards his garden which must be considered. Whether be grows vegetables to satisfy his hunger or grows flowers to make his home slightly less drab or whether he merely enjoys the work, the main factor is that he works for himself and his dependents.

But the reason for the high productivity of modern industry, which makes Socialism and abundance for all a possibility, is the co-operative nature of production. Therefore it is obviously impossible to dismantle industry and make everyone the owner of a single unit of production. The alternative to capitalism, with its individual ownership on the one hand, and social production on the other, is Socialism, a system in which society will not merely co-operate in the process of production, but also own the means by which wealth is produced.

When society as a whole owns the means of production; its members will work for themselves as members of society, just as the man in his garden works for himself. Unlike the wageworker under capitalism, they will not toil to make fortunes for their employers, whilst their wages obtain just the bare necessities of life.

For years defenders of capitalism have argued that the only effective incentive to work is the threat of starvation. Mr. Balchin’s statement shows that such an assumption is false and that there is a desire in every normal human being to perform some manner of socially useful work.

F.T.