MASS PRODUCTION UNDER SOCIALISM

Comrade Turner, in stating his case against mass production, takes the example of bread making (a good one) in support of his contention. But one does not live by bread alone; and under Socialism only the best goods will be produced.

Let me take the case of mattress making, because it happens to be the work I am partly engaged in. The best kind of mattress made, up to date, for comfort and rest is the spring

interior mattress. Inside this there are up to 300 steel wire spiral springs, which are sewn

into pockets by machinery. Prior to this the wire has to be processed and tested, and later hair pads are sewn over the springs. In addition, a border is sewn on and finished off by cord piping. All this is done by machinery.

It seems to me that under Socialism. this

type of mattress is impossible without some

form of mass production. Housewives may

like baking their own bread, but I doubt very

much whether they are willing to make a

spring interior mattress to sleep on.

I should like Comrade Turner to explain

how such things as gas stoves, electric irons and

fires, wireless and television sets (let alone rail-

way engines with their 5,000 independent parts) are going to be produced without mass production. Articles made up of so many pieces are impossible to make in the home. Before Socialism is possible, as Marx and others have pointed out over and over again, large-scale production is necessary. Although we may abolish large cities, it does not mean we are going back to small-scale production.

Attractive Methods?

Comrade Turner wants to hear about the differences which make mass production methods attractive within Socialism. I will do my best to oblige him.

Under Capitalism a man is tied to a mattress machine for 8 hours—whereas under Socialism he works perhaps 2 at it, making it very much less boring and arduous. Also he is fed, housed and clothed better, and this makes any work more pleasurable. It is just the " excessive" division of labour (which under present conditions has become a curse) that is the means—the starting point—of the increased production and all-round development to which Marx referred.

All the machines I mentioned in mattress

making are easy to work. An operative working on one can change to another, so that over a period of time all the operatives are able to work all the machines.

It is easy to see that when this principle is applied generally it means an all-round development of each individual. Continually doing fresh things, he knows that when he finishes working in one field of labour he can soon turn to another. At the start people will, if necessary, decide among themselves by democratic vote who operates which machine. There is no difficulty here, because the operatives have full control of production.

In short, mass production, rightly understood, is seen to be beneficial to society instead of the curse it is today under Capitalism,

J. E. ROE.