Francis A. Walker
Vernon Louis Parrington
[Excerpted from Main Currents in American Thought,
Vol.3,
published by Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1927, pp.111-117]
The social conscience of [Henry C.] Carey was colored with an
optimism that was the spontaneous expression of a generation that set
no limits to the beneficent development of American industrialism. No
storm-clouds had yet gathered on the horizon; no hostile systems
challenged the sufficiency of capitalism. But a change was at hand. By
the end of the seventies the complacency of the Gilded Age was
disturbed by the rise of pestilent heresies in the shape of new
economic dogmas. The surplus-value theory of Marx and the
unearned-increment theory of Henry George were spreading widely
through America, to the unsettlement of susceptible minds; and the
Knights of Labor were preparing to launch a general attack against the
whole system of capitalistic exploitation. Carey had sufficed the
wants of his simpler day, but there was need of a new champion to
wield the sword of pure Ricardian doctrine against these later
heresies.
Francis A. Walker, son of the economist Amasa Walker, Brigadier
General in the Civil War, Professor at Sheffield Scientific School and
later President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was to
be the self-appointed champion of industrialism, the official
economist of the Gilded Age, and forerunner of a long line of academic
purveyors of economic dogma. As the author of a college textbook that
superseded Francis Wayland's naive Elements of Political Economy
-- a work that had served innumerable college generations as a quarry
of economic doctrine he elaborated a complete system of economics with
a geniality that went far to popularize the "dismal science"
with vast numbers of undergraduates; and as an authoritative apologist
for entrepreneur profits he rendered a service to capitalism that
quite erased his little Ricardian peccadillo of free-trade prejudice.
There runs through his solid pages the confident optimism of his
generation -- an optimism that discovers in the heresies of socialism
and singletax the only storm-clouds on the fair American horizons. He
saw no reason to question the ultimate good of industrialism, or to
fear any deep-seated clash between labor and capital. He carried water
easily on both shoulders, for he was so fortunate as to have worked
out to his complete satisfaction, a magic economic formula that should
return both to master and workman their just shares of the total
production. In the light of his exegesis there could be no Marxian
struggle of the classes. The captain of industry must no longer be
regarded with sour aspect as a parasite upon labor, hut as a fellow
worker, the creator of those profits which are not subtracted for his
benefit from the portion of labor. From Ricardo to Marx the economists
had been barking up the wrong tree in their analysis of the rewards of
the entrepreneur.
The classical school of the Gilded Age was in like position with the
eighteenth-century Calvinists; they must either abandon their dogmas
or reinterpret them to meet current needs. Walker was too good a
Ricardian to abandon them, so he proposed to reinterpret them. The
urgent problems to which he addressed himself were the sources of
profits and of wages; and the examination of those problems led him to
his theory of the function of the entrepreneur and to a rejection of
the classical wage-fund theory. He refused to discard his suit of
Ricardian clothes as Carey had done. They could never go out of style,
he believed, so long as honest thinking was respected. He accepted
most of the Ricardian dogmas without question. "Capital," he
asserted soberly, "arises solely from saving. It stands always
for self-denial and abstinence," and interest is the "reward
of abstinence." But one important dogma, the classical wage-fund
theory, he insisted on stripping away. He was too genial an optimist
to rest content with the bleak conception that the margin of
subsistence circumscribes the rewards of labor, and too enlightened an
apologist of industrialism to assert that profits are the leavings of
wages." He could not hope to erect a theory suitable to the
Gilded Age on such skimpy hypotheses, and he scourged them from the
temple of economic law. Wages, to be sure, are the leavings after
rent, interest, and profits have been deducted from the total
production; but vast and dangerous misconceptions have arisen in
regard to the portions that accrue to these several partners, and in
particular mischievous perversions touching the share of profits. This
was the crux of the problem of distribution and until the nature of
profits should be determined the question of wages would remain to
befuddle weak heads.
The heart of Walker's doctrine, therefore, is his theory of profits.
He proposed to show that according to the true law of profits this
flexible increment is never a moiety wrested from labor, but an
additional earning of management that justly accrues to him who
creates it. The doctrine from which he deduced his theory of the
entrepreneur was the Ricardian theory of rent. On this point Walker
was the most loyal of Ricardians, and he violently attacked Carey for
repudiating the classical dogma. In a word "Ricardo's doctrine
can no more be impugned than the sun in the heaven," he asserted,
"and those who mouth at it simply show that they do not know what
it was Ricardo taught." [Land and its
Rent, p.108] What was needed was to understand its wide
implications rather than to seek to destroy it to trace in all its
reaches the doctrine of fertility and discover how in other spheres
than land the difference between fertile and unfertile measures the
return upon economic endeavor. For the great doctrine of fertility,
Walker pointed out, following Mill, is capable of expansion to cover
wider fields than rent; it applies equally to management and labor; it
broadens out into a comprehensive principle that exactly measures the
most bitterly disputed of the several increments, the increment of
profits.
This theory of fertility, introduced into the law of distribution, is
Walker's most interesting contribution to economic speculation. By it
he supplemented the trinity of land, capital, and labor -- or in terms
of distribution, of rent, interest, and wages -- with a new entity --
management and the earnings of management. The argument is highly
ingenious. Assuming a no-profits employer at the lowest scale of the
entrepreneur system, by analogy from the Ricardian no-rent grade of
land, he asserted that similarly "profits are measured upwards
from the level of the no-profits class of employers," and hence "it
appears that the gains of the employer are not taken from the earnings
of the laboring class, but measure the difference in production
between the commonplace or bad, and the able, and shrewd, and strong
management of business." [Political
Economy, pp.242, 348] Profits, then, are an added increment
of management, secured by foresight and business skill, the fruit of
managerial fertility; and since they flow solely from the entrepreneur
they belong to him alone and no portion may be justly claimed for
rent, interest, or wages. The complete theory he states thus:
Under free and full competition, the successful employers
of labour would earn a remuneration which would be exactly measured,
in the case of each man, by the amount of wealth which he could
produce, with a given application of labour and capital, over and
above what would be produced by employers of the lowest industrial,
or no-profits, grade, making use of the same amounts of labour and
capital, just as rent measures the surplus of the produce of the
better lands over and above what would be produced by the same
application of labour and capital to the least productive lands
which contribute to the supply of the market, lands which themselves
bear no rent. [Quarterly Journal of
Economics, april, 1887. Quoted in Gide and Rist, A History
of Economic Doctrine, p.551]
It is a persuasive argument of which Walker was vastly proud. The
germ of it later historians of economic thought have traced to Senior
and John Stuart Mill, who had suggested the idea of "differential
rent," or "rent of ability," which is the reward of "all
peculiar advantages of extraordinary qualities of body and mind."
[Ibid., p.549[ From whatever
source it issued, the usefulness of such doctrine in the days of an
expanding industrialism, and the ends it might serve in counteracting
proletarian philosophies, are too evident to need comment. The Marxian
dogma of surplus value-that profits are stealings from wages -- was
certainly calculated to breed dissatisfaction in weak proletarian
heads. Marx was a good Ricardian in his major postulates and the
Ricardians had failed to analyze adequately the true sources of
profits; because of such failure the classical school had
underestimated the social beneficence of the capitalistic system.
Chained to the iron law of wages the school had been forced to
envisage a bleak future with labor kept always at the margin of
subsistence. From this pessimism Walker proposed to rid economic
theory, by showing that entrepreneur profits augment the wage fund and
hence that the entrepreneur is the benefactor rather than the
exploiter of labor. With his business skill the captain of industry,
like the inventor of a new machine, lays open new sources of wealth
for all, and if he gains much for himself he gives more to society;
for every improvement in business methods accrues in the end to
society as a whole, for the new technique soon becomes a common
possession.
The validity of Walker's theory of profits does not concern us here;
it is a matter for economists to determine. To one who is under the
spell of no doctrinaire system the theory seems somewhat too neat with
its assumption of "free arid full competition "; [For
a critical examination see Gide and Rist, A History of Economic
Doctrine, pp.551-558] and in its conscious purpose to
glorify the captain of industry it is freighted rather too heavily
with the spirit of the Gilded Age. It not only throws the door wide to
exploitation but it invites everybody to the feast. Yet the work of
the apologist was only half done. Having established to his
satisfaction the law of profits, Walker was prepared to take equally
high ground in determining the increment that falls to labor. To
glorify profits and at the same time defend the pessimism of the
wage-fund theory, would have been foolish tactics in presence of the
Marxian surplus-value theory; proletarian discontent must be dealt
with and Walker was prepared to deal with it. Having ascertained
exactly the several increments due to rent, interest, and profits --
which in his system are rigidly determined by economic law -- he
confidently assigned all the residual increment to wages. Labor not
only gets all it earns, he argued, but far more, since what does not
fall to the just shares of the other partners falls to it -- that is
the "whole remaining body of wealth." If it be recalled that
the total social fund of inventions, machinery, trade processes,
systems of transportation, business methods, are alike in the service
of all employers -- the no-profit entrepreneur equally with the
high-profit -- it follows that the individual employer can derive from
such social wealth no modicum of profit above and beyond what his
individual fertility has produced. Where then can the income from such
social fund flow except to wages? "Every invention in mechanics,
every discovery in the chemical art, no matter by whom made, inures
directly and immediately" to the benefit of labor. [Political
Economy, pp.251-258] This, to be sure, on the hypothesis of
"full and free competition," which may be interfered with by
various means but which in the long run prevails. How else shall one
explain the constant rise in the wage-scale that has marked the
Industrial Revolution and that has gone hand in hand with vast profits
to the entrepreneur class?
It was a robust optimism that could lay down the theory that labor is
"the residual claimant to the product of industry." Although
Walker prided himself on his discovery, it seems to have made slight
impression on later economic thought. Like too many members of the
classical school the apologist of the Gilded Age failed to keep his
feet on the plebeian earth; and his conclusions suggest how great
mischief a priori reasoning may work in the speculations of
academic gentlemen. A moderate dash of realism might have lessened his
buoyant optimism; but Walker was too warm an admirer of capitalism,
too eager to assert the beneficence of industrialism, to inquire
curiously into the everyday facts of current exploitation. As a
realistic statistician he was far inferior to Carey. But why demand a
plodding realism of the economist when all America was romantic? If
the economic theory of General Walker was a pleasant blend of Ricardo
and Colonel Sellers, would it not hit the taste of the age to a
nicety? Its sturdy optimism was a soothing antidote to the Jeremiads
of the Marxians and the shrill demands of the single-taxers. The Gold
Coast of America looked to its official economists for a confutation
of all economic heresies, and who was so well equipped for that
business as a doughty Colonel Sellers armed with a sharp Ricardian
sword?
In this brisk work Walker engaged with gusto. In his onslaught upon
Marx and Henry George he was untroubled by doubt. He first demolished
the structure of their theory and then impugned their honesty. His
condemnation of single-tax is bold and sweeping. There is a bitter
asperity in his denunciation of the economic heresies of Progress
and Poverty, and he dismisses the proposal to tax unearned
increment with the comment, "Every honest man will resent such a
proposition as an insult." [Land and
its Rent, Preface, p.vi.] His discussion of the economics
of the question is only casual and he hastens back to the safe haven
of Ricardian doctrine.[Ibid.,
pp.181-182] In his commentary on the Knights of Labor he is
somewhat vindictive for a well-bred gentleman. He charges the
syndicalistic attack on the profits system to immigrant foreigners,
asserts that the law of profit fertility is an insuperable obstacle to
any proletarian control of industry, and finally damns it as
un-American. The honest, native American "knows that for himself
and his children the way is open clear to the top"; his "spirit
is that of civility, reciprocity and fair play"; and he
concludes:
Had it heen left to our native population alone, not one
of those violent and reckless attacks upon production and
transportation, which have, within the past two or three years,
shocked the whole industrial system and have come near to produce a
general crisis of trade, would ever have taken place.[Political
Economy, p.394]
Yet in spite of his genial optimism he discovered specks on the fair
picture of society. To the Ricardian logic the stupidity of men is a
constant irritant; if only men were rational the path of progress
would be so much easier! After economic law has been demonstrated with
the finality of a Euclidian theorem, it is disconcerting to see how
the multitude will not be reasoned with, but persist in following
after the last false prophet who cries in the marketplace. The clamor
raised by single-tax was especially annoying. "That such an
argument," he remarked a bit testily, "should for a moment
have imposed upon anybody, is enough to give one a new conception of
the intellectual capabilities of mankind."[Ibid.,
p.433.] Fortunate it is for society, he concludes, that while
man proposes, economic law disposes. False prophets will have their
little day, but from their secure watch-tower the Ricardians calmly
look out upon a world of which they alone hold the key.
|