The modern social science of political economy posits that an advantageous code of social action can be determined regardless of the influence of social affection. This theory is based on the idea that social affections are accidental and disturbing elements in human nature, while avarice and the desire for progress are constant elements. However, the disturbing elements in the social problem are not of the same nature as the constant ones, as they alter the essence of the creature under examination the moment they are added.
The author does not deny the truth of this theory, but denies its applicability to the present phase of the world. The late strikes of workmen have highlighted the inapplicability of this theory, as it fails to provide a demonstrable solution to the issue of the relation between employer and employed. The interests of masters and laborers may not always be antagonistic due to their diverse interests, and the logical conditions of the question are still indeterminable.
The interests of both parties are always the same, but the division of profits can lead to the loss or gain of the other. The variety of circumstances that influence these reciprocal interests is so endless that all efforts to deduce rules of action from balance of expediency are in vain. No man ever knows or can know what will be the ultimate result to himself or others of any given line of conduct. However, every man can know what is a just and unjust act, and the consequences of justice will ultimately be the best possible for both others and ourselves.
Balances of justice, including affection, are essential for the right relations between master and operative, and their best interests depend on these. The most simplest example of this is the relationship between domestic servants. The master desires to get as much work out of his servants as possible, but does not allow them to be idle, feed them poorly, and force them to leave. This politico-economical view assumes that the greatest average of work will be obtained from the servant, and therefore the greatest benefit to the community. However, this is not the case. The servant’s motive power is a Soul, and the force of this Soul enters into all political economist’s equations without the master’s knowledge and falsifies their results. The greatest material result obtainable by the master and servant is through affection for each other. If the master seeks to render his appointed and necessary work beneficial to him and forward his interests in all just and wholesome ways, the real amount of work ultimately done or of good rendered by the person so cared for will indeed be the greatest possible.
Unselfish treatment will produce the most effective return, as affections are an anomalous force that renders ordinary political economist’s calculations nugatory. Treating the servant kindly without any economical purpose will answer all economical purposes, and whosoever will save his life will lose it, whosoever loses it will find it.
The relationship between a commander and his men is a simple example of master-operative relationships. If the officer aims to apply discipline rules to make the regiment effective, they cannot develop the full strength of his subordinates. However, a strong officer with direct personal relations with his men can develop their effective strength through affection and trust. This law applies more stringently as the numbers involved are larger.
The author discusses the complex relationship between a manufacturer and his workmen, highlighting the difficulties in moral matters and the administration of the system. Workers are typically engaged at a fixed rate of wages, while servants or soldiers are engaged at a definite rate of wages for a definite period. This leads to an explosive action of disaffections, as no action of affections can take place under these contingencies.
The author questions how far it is possible to fix the rate of wages regardless of the demand for labor. While wages are already regulated for most important and unimportant labor, the best labor is always paid by an invariable standard. The difference between good and bad workmen is greater than the difference between good and bad laying of bricks, but they should be paid with equal fees.
The natural and right system respecting all labor is that it should be paid at a fixed rate, with the good workman employed and the bad workman unemployed. The false, unnatural, and destructive system is when the bad workman is allowed to offer his work at half-price, either taking the place of the good or forcing him to work for an inadequate sum. The equality of wages is the first objective, followed by maintaining constant numbers of workmen in employment, whatever the accidental demand for the article they produce.
The author argues that the sudden and extensive inequalities of demand in mercantile operations of an active nation are the only essential difficulty to overcome in a just organization of labor. He notes that wages for workmen are higher if their work is liable to intermission than if it is assured and continuous. The tendency of modern mercantile operations is to throw both wages and trade into the form of a lottery, making the workman’s pay depend on intermittent exertion and the principal’s profit on dexterously used chance.
The author believes that this is unnecessary and results from love of gambling on the part of masters and ignorance and sensuality in the men. To help his workmen, a principal should check these disorderly habits, keep their business operations on a scale that will enable them to pursue them securely, and lead their workmen into regular habits of labor and life.
The author also discusses the difference between regiments of men associated for purposes of violence and for purposes of manufacture. The world honors the soldier’s trade, which is not slaying but being slain, and the respect we give to the lawyer and physician is founded on their self-sacrifice. The author believes that justice is first with the soldier in all important acts of his life, and his own interest is second.
The principle of honor for physicians, clergymen, and merchants is based on their unselfishness and serviceableness. Merchants are presumed to act selfishly, with the public believing that their work is necessary for the community but their motive is wholly personal. Enforcing this principle by political statute and recommending it on all occasions, the public condemns the merchant for their compliance and stamps them as belonging to an inferior grade of human personality.
To discover a kind of commerce that is not exclusively selfish, people must discover that there is no other kind of commerce. In true commerce, there is an occasional voluntary loss, and the market may have martyrdoms and trade heroisms as well as war. People have never been clearly explained the true functions of a merchant with respect to other people.
Five great intellectual professions, including soldiers, pastors, physicians, lawyers, and merchants, have existed in every civilized nation. The duty of these men is to die for their profession, and the merchant’s function is to provide for the nation. It is not their function to get profit for themselves out of that provision, but rather to understand the qualities of the thing they deal in and the means of obtaining or producing it.
The essay emphasizes the importance of a merchant’s intelligence, patience, kindness, and tact in their functions as governors and providers. The merchant must maintain their commitments and the perfectness of the goods they provide, ensuring that they meet any distress, poverty, or labor that may arise. In their office as governor of their employees, the merchant or manufacturer is invested with a paternal authority and responsibility. The master’s authority, the tone and atmosphere of their business, and the character of the men they associate with have more immediate and pressing weight than home influence. The merchant must treat all his employees as if he were treating his own son, treating them as if he were treating his own son. In any commercial crisis or distress, the manufacturer must take the suffering with his men, taking more of it for himself than allowing his men to feel. This is the only effective, true, and practical rule in political economy, as other doctrines are false in premises, absurd in deduction, and impossible in practice.
