The Acquisitive Society · Chapter
Industry as a Profession explained
This chapter argues that industry should be reorganized as a profession, where the primary criterion is service rather than pecuniary gain.
What happens
This chapter argues that industry should be reorganized as a profession, where the primary criterion is service rather than pecuniary gain. It critiques the current system where property owners hold rights without performing any function, and proposes that applying the principle of purpose to industry means turning it into a profession—a trade organized for the performance of function, with rules to maintain standards and exclude speculative profit. The chapter contrasts this with the existing industrial system, which measures success solely by financial return, and contends that the conflict between labor and capital can only be resolved by basing rights on functions, not on force or ownership.
Themes in this chapter
Function vs. Rights
Central to the chapter: property rights are criticized as passive and functionless, and the principle of purpose is applied to industry to base rights on the performance of function.
Industry as a Profession
The chapter's title and core proposal: reorganizing industry as a profession, with service as the criterion of success and rules to enforce professional standards.
Critique of the Acquisitive Society
The chapter condemns the acquisitive motive in industry, where pecuniary gain is the only criterion, and contrasts it with the professional ideal of service.
Property and Privilege
Critique of passive property ownership that confers authority without function, and the need to alter proprietary rights to serve the end of industry.
Characters to notice
- the Germans
Cited as an analogy: the position of owners who contribute nothing to production is compared to the Germans negotiating from Brussels—their presence is illegitimate and breeds resentment.
- Adam Smith
Mentioned as an example of the old Oxford reality, contrasting with the professional spirit that later developed in teaching.
- Bacon
Referenced indirectly through the phrase 'robust non sequitur' and the critique of economists who ignore facts, though not explicitly named in the excerpts.
- Providence
Implied in the critique of the idea that property rights are divinely ordained or natural, as the chapter argues they must be based on function.
Key passages
“A Profession may be defined most simply as a trade which is organized, incompletely, no doubt, but genuinely, for the performance of function.”
A profession is a trade that is structured, however imperfectly, to fulfill a purpose or service.
Defines the core concept of a profession as function-oriented, not profit-oriented.
“The essence of the former is that its only criterion is the financial return which it offers to its shareholders. The essence of the latter, is that, though men enter it for the sake of livelihood, the measure of their success is the service which they perform, not the gains which they amass.”
Industry today is judged solely by profit to shareholders, whereas a profession measures success by the service provided, not by wealth accumulated.
Highlights the fundamental difference between current industry and the proposed professional model.
“The only significance of these clichés is that their repetition tends to muffle their inanity, even to the point of persuading sensible men that capital 'employs' labor, much as our pagan ancestors imagined that the other pieces of wood and iron, which they deified in their day, sent their crops and won their battles.”
Repeating phrases like 'harmony between labor and capital' only hides their absurdity, making people believe that capital employs labor, just as ancient people thought idols controlled their harvests and wars.
Criticizes the reification of capital as an active agent, arguing it is merely a tool.
“The application to industry of the principle of function involves an alteration of proprietary rights, because those rights do not contribute, as they now are, to the end which industry exists to serve.”
Applying the principle of function to industry requires changing property rights, since current rights do not serve the purpose of industry.
Links the principle of function directly to the need for reform of property ownership.
