A work which professes to treat political questions in a scientific spirit is
always welcome, and should receive the attention of all classes of the thinking
public, no matter to what party they may belong. The author of this treatise is
plainly a Conservative, but he takes his party to book for relying upon
denunciations of democratic and radical schemes of reform for no other reason
than that they upset cherished convictions and traditional principles. When the
Conservatives criticise, for instance, any proposition that seems to tamper with
property, they have practically but one way of denouncing it ; they call it a
scheme of theft, and when they do so they seem to think that the last word has
been said. The democrats do not care to deny that social progress requires some
violation of rights that have hitherto been held sacred, and some of them even
maintain that property itself is robbery, so that the bandying about of the word
"theft" does no good, and makes no impression. There is a begging of the
question on both sides. The Conservatives should, the author maintains, prove
that property is a thing which should be respected before they can hope to
secure a verdict against those who do not respect it. They must leave off
appealing to old traditions that were once thought sacred, to moral principles
that were once thought absolute. Instead of appealing to them they must defend
them, or rather see how far they are defensible. He holds that it would be idle
to show, in regard to any scheme of what they deem to be confiscation, how
unjustly the few would suffer. The only reply would be "So much the worse for
the few." If their position is to be defended at all, it must be defended on
wider grounds, and in a very much deeper way. It must be shown that the attack
would not injure the few only, but that it would equally bring ruin on the many
; and this can be done only by an accurate and scientific demonstration of the
principles for which they contend. The inquiry which he recommends has, he
asserts, never been attempted. The world is dividing itself into two hostile
parties, the one denying and the other asserting certain social propositions.
The propositions are distinct ; the assertions and the denials are vehement ;
but if their scientific basis be asked for, both sides are equally unable to
give an answer. He admits that there may be scattered arguments, each possessing
separately a true scientific character, but that no writer as yet has ever dealt
with them in a systematic manner. Though opinions on the subject are growing
daily more marked and positive, they are opinions only — not scientific
knowledge ; nor can one set of them definitely dispel the other. Each may
satisfy the man who is not disposed to doubt it, but it cannot compel the
reluctant consent of any one to whose passions or interest it would be likely to
prove hostile. The science according to which social problems can be placed in a
clear light is, he contends, a missing science, and it is his task to create or
restore it. The allegation is a startling one, and his claim to be regarded as
the first to under take the task is self-assertive to a degree which is not
allowable. There is nothing objection able about his earnestness, however, and a
little exaggeration may be pardoned.
His arguments are mostly directed against those extreme radicals and democrats
who demand a re-distribution of property, and whose aim is to bring about a
state of absolute equality, so that they do not touch the moderate class of
reforming Liberals, who merely wage war against those abuses which tend to bring
about a state of non-natural inequality. He does not attempt to illustrate his
argument by reference to any of the burning questions of the day, although he,
no doubt, has them in his own mind's eye. He deals with generalities, and many
of his propositions may find general acceptance even among those who would
differ altogether with him in regard to their application.
In discussing the principles of modern democracy, he takes as his text the
memorable address of Mr. John Bright to an audience of working men, from which
he selects the kernel :— " Just now, as I was on my way to this place to speak
to you, I watched in the street a magnificent carriage pass me, and in that
carriage were two splendidly dressed ladies. Who made that carriage? You did,
Who made those splendid dresses? You did. Have your wives any such carriages to
drive in? Do your wives ever wear clothes of that kind? I watched that carriage
further, and saw where it stopped. It stopped before a stately house, with an
imposing portico. Who built that house? You did Do you and your wives live in
such houses as that?" It must be confessed that in this speech there is
something that reminds one of Jack Cade, but our author does not say anything so
harsh as that. He assumes that the meaning of it is that we re-distribute the
existing wealth of the world, and yet not diminish the amount of it ;or, in
plainer language, that if we can take from the wealthy the excessive wealth
which they now consume annually, and divide it amongst the poor, there will
still annually be the same wealth produced. He denies the truth of the
proposition. He, moreover, boldly denies that labor is the ultimate cause of
wealth, and maintains that apart from other causes it would be utterly powerless
to produce it, consequently that that distribution of wealth is a scientific
impossibility, and that no laws could accomplish it; that the structure of
society does not depend on its institutions, but that, on the other hand, the
institutions depend on the structure ; and that if material equality is ever to
be secured at all, it will be secured only by the destruction of civilisation,
not by any distribution of the finer existing fruits of it. In pursuance of his
proposition, that labor is not the sole wealth-producer, he endeavors to point
out that under conditions of equality labor would only be brought into play to
secure the barest necessaries of life, and that no man would exert himself to
create wealth of which he could only secure a unit. Mr. Bright did not mean that
every man should have a carriage, dress sumptuously, and life in a palace; but
he failed to see the opposite alternative, (supposing him to be an advocate for
equality), that a distribution of existing wealth would prevent the creation of
wealth hereafter. The house with the portico could not have been built without
the aid of the architect. The essential characteristics of the wealth to which
Mr, Bright referred could not have been given it by manual labor, and even as a
factor in the creation of such wealth, the labor would never have been expended
upon it. Mr. Mallock's contention is that the only incentive to labor in the
production of wealth is the desire for inequality. Every man concerned in such
production desires to better his condition, and that is only another term for
the desire of inequality. Withdraw that incentive, and no wealth would be
produced. This, we think, is a fair statement in brief of the author's views on
this point. We are merely setting forth his theory, not discussing it. Labor in
his eyes is merely a means in the production of wealth, the motive— the desire
for inequality — being the chief factor. Labor is no more the cause of wealth
than Shakspeare's pen was the cause of his writing Hamlet. Motive itself is the
resultant of two things — a man's internal character, and his external
circumstances — and the cause of wealth is to be sought for in these. The
condition of its production can never be understood until in some way or other
it is systematically connected with both of them. The case of Columbus and his
discovery of the new world is referred to as an illustration of the desire of
inequality acting as a powerful motive. Columbus stipulated for extravagant
rewards as the price of his enterprise, and included hereditary rank in his own
family, with a perpetual royalty on the trade he opened up. It was neither a
love of enterprise nor of philanthropy that led him on."
Our author admits the existence of these motives, but denies that they are
ever indulged in for the purpose of creating wealth for others. Philanthropy,
for instance, never rises above the alleviation of suffering. The theory is
somewhat sordid, but the question is —Is it true ? We content ourselves with
stating it, and refrain from further criticism. Our author, moreover, contends
for the creation of a science of human character. Buckle sought to establish a
science of history, and Herbert Spencer a science of sociology. Both these
sciences point to a science of character, but do not include it. They say that
Julius Caesar was the creation of the times in which he lived, but ignore the
force of his individuality. On this point Mr. Spencer and Mr. Mallock are at
direct issue. The former derides the "great man theory," while the latter
maintains it. Mr. Spencer says that the great man merely does what society
would, by other means, do for itself. Mr. Mallock, on the other hand, maintains
that if Columbus had not discovered America society would have been powerless to
supply the deficiency. No doubt much may be said on both sides, but a science of
human character is nevertheless desirable. Mr. Spencer admits that the desire to
rise into a higher rank of life has an average effect on the average man. Of
course the science is not a new one, its materials having been the
stock-in-trade of all the poets, novelists and historians that ever lived ; but
its claims to the rank of a science have not been set forth or insisted upon.
The same may be said of the sciences of history, and sociology before they were
formulated by Buckle and Spencer. What Mr. Mallock aims at is to show that a
study of the science of human character will demonstrate the absurdity of
attempting to establish equality.
Having thus briefly, and necessarily inadequately; set forth the new theory, we
would draw attention to the fact that it does not in the slightest degree affect
the positions of the Conservative and the moderate Liberal. Each may pursue his
way entirely unaffected by our author's views. To descend from the abstract to
the concrete, we may ask what bearing they have on the question of the law of
primogeniture. This law is unquestionably a stumbling block in the development
of human character. It establishes an artificial inequality in favor of a few,
and restricts the operation of the motive for exertion in the many. If the
desire for inequality be the great stimulus to the production of wealth, here is
a law which restrains and renders prohibitory the operation of a powerful motive
by rendering the end unattainable. According to his own showing Mr, Mallock
should be a strenuous advocate for the abrogation of that law. There is nothing
in his book to indicate his opinion on this point ; but as this is one of the
did traditions of Conservatism, which he implores the party to place on a
scientific basis, we cannot help wondering how he would go to work to prop it
up. There are many other questions of the day respecting which the Liberals
might draw upon Mr. Mallock's book for arguments antagonistic to the position of
the Conservatives. It is a question whether it will not prove an arsenal of
weapons more valuable to the Liberals than to the Conservatives ; but whatever
may be the result in that way, we have no hesitation in recommending its perusal
to all politicians, whatever their convictions may be.
*Social Equality: A Short Study in a Missing Science. By W. H. Mallock,
Living, London ; Richard Bently.
Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 - 1954), Monday 27 November 1882, page 7
No comments:
Post a Comment