Part
II: The Mechanism of the Classical Ideal
CHAPTER IV
POVERTY
AMIDST PLENTY
BEFORE returning to a consideration of the working of the financial
mechanism, with a view to understanding the manner in which
it is made subservient to a Classical rather than a Modern conception
of Society, it may be useful to examine further ideas which
are invoked to give support to the policy; and one of such ideas
which is being worked hard at the present time is that of the
necessity for economy.
To
the ordinary individual at his wit's end to achieve the task
of making a small income meet an expenditure which invariably
threatens to exceed it, the necessity for such economy would
seem obvious and unanswerable. To those who have followed the
arguments adduced in the preceding pages, it will be clear that
there is a good deal to be said after granting, readily, the
fact that the money incomes of the population are reduced by
taxation, unemployment and otherwise, to a point at which lavish
spending is quite impossible. It is probable that at the present
time there are 25 per cent more shops or goods-distributing
centres in Great Britain than there were in 1914, and it certainly
would be difficult to suggest that those shops are empty of
goods. It is impossible to take up a daily newspaper without
observing that the major portion of it is devoted either to
the necessity of increasing trade, or to the discussion of subjects
whose interest largely depends upon that necessity, and one
of the simplest and most obvious questions which arises, is
the enquiry as to how the shops are to be emptied of their goods
and this all-important "Trade" is to be stimulated and expanded,
if everyone is more economical; which would appear to mean that
they are to spend less, and save more.
This
idea of thrift, like that of economy, is an example of the perversion
of an idea which has lost its original application. When the
business of obtaining bed, board, and clothes did, in fact,
necessitate the application to it of the major portion of the
day, it was a sound and far-sighted policy to simplify these
needs as far as possible, not because there is any inherent
virtue in simplification per se (which is a common delusion),
but because the setting free of the time of the general population
for other aims was a valuable achievement. But the devastating
rigidity of thought, which is a distinguishing characteristic
of the Classical or "Moral" mind, fastened on this situation
and crystallized it into a static virtue. Once a virtue, always
a virtue. The fact that there is no physical limitation to the
satisfaction of reasonable material requirements - that in fact
there is no such thing in the modern world with the exception
of Russia as a poor country in any sense other than that of
a scarcity of tickets to operate satisfactorily as purchasing-power
only serves to transfer this exhortation to be thrifty, from
goods of which there is a surfeit, to money of which there is
a scarcity. The situation is similar to that of a man provided
with every form of food, and with coal, wood and matches with
which to cook it, but who is accustomed to cook his food upon
a paraffin stove, and is informed that there is only a pint
of paraffin left, and that in consequence the most rigid economy
of food must now and in the future be enforced. And the extraordinary
part of it is that the world in general as represented by the
man, seems unwilling to try the effect of either wood, coal,
or any other fuel than the metaphorical paraffin; or even, if
forced, to eat his food uncooked. It is hardly necessary to
stress the attractions of this situation to the paraffin merchants.
Taking
the situation as it is, and assuming an increasing capacity
to produce and deliver goods per unit of time as tile consequence
of scientific progress, it is not difficult to see where obedience
to this parrot cry of economy must lead us. If it does, in fact,
reduce or even stabilise our consumption of the goods produced,
and the hours of work, and the number of commercial workers
remains the same, then, not only is unemployment stabilised,
but either a greater proportion of the production of these workers
must year by year be exported, or in some way or other, more
and more producing organisations must be built up and the problem
complicated at compound interest. Since, under these conditions,
every country would be an exporting country, and the exporting
of goods to other planets is not at present practicable, it
is not difficult to foresee that complications may arise. When
in addition we see the purchasing-power of "savings" constantly
filched by excessive prices and predatory taxation, the adjuration
to "save more" seems to underrate even the meanest intelligence.
The
word "economy" originally meant the management of the household,
just as "thrift" originally meant progress in achieving a happier
and therefore saner state of life, and in this sense it is clear
enough that both words still have a definite and useful meaning.
But so far from the financial economy and thrift, which is so
constantly preached at the present day, representing either
good management or sane progress, it is mathematically demonstrable
that it can only result in unbalanced production and consequent
catastrophe. The only object of production is consumption, whether
that consumption takes the material form in which the word is
commonly understood, or whether we extend its meaning to include
the artistic gratification which is to be obtained from production
carried out under suitable conditions. And so far as production
either fails, or is in excess in respect to these demands, neither
economy nor thrift, in any true sense of the word, can be involved.
A
further example of the perversion and misuse of words, in order
to obtain the defeat of the concrete embodiment of those words,
is in regard to the common use of the word democracy, and its
glorification as an end in itself. In so far as the word is
used to suggest the detailed administration of public affairs
by the majority, it is a pure fantasy, and not only never has
existed but it would seem probable, could never in the nature
of things exist. In any kind of world of which we have any conscious
experience, it would be a nightmare. If ten men be selected
at random, and problems of graded difficulty be submitted to
them, it is possible that the very simplest problem will be
solved by all of them, but a point will rapidly be reached at
which a decreasing minority will have any grasp of the subject
at issue. In so far as the matters submitted to their judgment
are not matters of precedent (and progress consists in a constant
departure from precedent) it is certain that the minority of
our selected ten will tend to be right, and the majority will
always be wrong. On matters of policy, however, in sharp contra-distinction
to the methods by which that policy should be carried out, the
majority may be trusted to be right, and the minority is very
frequently wrong. To submit questions of fiscal procedure, of
foreign affairs, and other cognate matters to the judgment of
an electorate is merely to submit matters which are essentially
technical to a community which is essentially non-technical.
On the contrary, broad and even philosophical issues, such as,
for instance, whether the aim of the industrial system is to
produce employment, or whether it is to produce and distribute
goods, are matters of policy, and it is noticeable that such
matters are kept as far as possible from the purview and decision
of the general public. In fact, the aim of political wire-pullers
is to submit to the decision of the electorate, only alternative
methods of embodying the same policy.
The
domain of policy comprises the removal of executives if the
results achieved are unsatisfactory. Although the general
public has partially awakened, during the past few years,
to the immense power exercised by the permanent and superior
Government Services, it is probable that few persons who have
not intimate experience of the workings of a great Government
Department, understand how completely the Permanent Heads of
those Departments are immune from public control. They are,
in the first place, appointed under a system which ensures that
they shall possess a habit of mind suitable for incorporation
in the formal machine of government (and in passing it may be
noted, that for success in this initial stage, a purely Classical
education is almost essential). Once appointed, their promotion
and success is subject to secret influences whose ramifications may be said to extend to the ends of the world. The ostensible,
or "Political" head of a great Government Department, is a mere
tool in the hands of the superior Permanent Officials (and
this is pre-eminently so in the case of the Treasury). It is
not a difficult matter for the Permanent Officials of a Government Department to obtain the removal of the Political Head
of it, but it is a matter of practical impossibility for the
Political Head to obtain the removal of one of his own Permanent
Officials. As a result, "Democracy," of which we hear so much,
is defeated at the source; and it is this brand of ineffective
democracy, forming the best possible screen for the operation
of forces which are invisible and are not subject to criticism,
which we are so constantly exhorted to preserve.
It
should be clear without reiteration that this condition of affairs
can only exist to perfection as a result of collectivist psychology.
The prime duty of a State servant is obedience - impersonality;
a surrender of individual judgment to a policy not necessarily
understood. As we have previously indicated, there is a great
deal to be said for this arrangement in the practical world
of affairs, provided that the sources from which the policy
originally proceeds are such as will stand the light of the
fullest publicity; but when, as is the case at present, the
policy is derived from sources which shun publicity by every
means in their power, unquestioning obedience, so far from becoming
a public duty, becomes a public danger.