Marx on State Regulation: A Comment

Abstract

In a recent issue of this journal, Douglas E. Booth presented Karl Marx's view of economic regulation as revealed by Marx's discussion of the English Factory Acts of 1850. Booth outlined Marx's analysis of the conflicting forces that molded legislation limiting the number of hours in the working day. Marx saw the struggle that sur? rounded this legislation as an example of the antagonisms in the labor capital relationship. He believed that labor should work fewer hours for their wages, while factory owners wanted to extend the work day. The Factory Acts placed these interests in direct opposition, but ac? cording to Marx, labor dominated in this instance. When the Fac? tory Acts were passed, Marx concluded, . . it was the first time that in broad daylight the political economy of the middle class suc? cumbed to the political economy of the working class. [Marx, Vol. II, p. 16] Regardless of the precedent of this alleged victory for the working class, there are several interesting questions that Booth leaves un? answered, questions which I propose to investigate here. First, Marx saw the enactment of these laws as the end product of a conscientious effort by labor to improve their working conditions, but there re? mains doubt whether the acts were really a result of the efforts of labor. Were the acts designed to aid labor, or did another interest group stand to benefit from their passage? Second, in the first half of the nineteenth century, a group of owners, sympathetic with the factory legislation, actively lobbied for its pas? sage. Booth believes that these owners acted out of humanitarian concern. However, their role in this process merits additional inquiry. Was compassion for the workers really their motivation, or is there a more plausible explanation for their action?