CHAPTER XXVI. ACTIVE EGOISM IN THE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM. THE decay of the militant system before an industrial civilisation is very apparent, and a still further decadence may not unreasonably be expected. The most who will read these pages live in the midst of a social order which is at least predominantly industrial in its character. The career of the soldier, although an honourable one, is not esteemed the first or the best occupation for him who would achieve the highest success in life; and military glory no longer commands the enthusiasm or the interest that it uniformly did in the past. Other ends of activity have risen into greater prominence, and the soldier has neither the power nor is awarded the consideration of bygone days. But if militarism be waning, the egoistic ideal of victory and dominion has not departed, but survives in modified forms, though unchanged in its essential character. Success in life means power over one's fellows, victory by raising one's self over a fallen competitor. And it is the prevalence of this ideal, the persistence in conduct inspired by it, that constitutes the chief obstruction to the elimination of evil from the most enlightened civilisations of the present age. Its effects we have already considered in several directions; but there is something more to be said, especially respecting individual character and conduct in the ordinary business relations of life. Strict justice is the proper rule for governmental action in all cases. Rights are to be preserved and enforced. But the government, as before said, is not an original source of activity or life: it is an artificial creation with delegated powers, whose purpose is to maintain the common freedom and secure to everyone the free exercise of his activity. The individual forms his ends, pursues them, regulates his conduct by them, restricted only (except as self-restrained) by the requirements of the common liberty. Now when this common freedom exists in its greatest perfection, the individual is very apt to consider that if he forms an ideal of his own aggrandisement, attained within the limits allowed by the common liberty, he has complied with all social requirements, and there ought to be nothing but praise and honour for his success. All the victories which he can gain in competition with others are legitimate, and if liberty is allowed to all, at least each man must look out for himself. Success in life is the achievement of the individual's own personal ends, which bear little relation to the advancement of any others or the promotion of their happiness. Where the paternal and fostering action of government is removed or reduced to the minimum, throwing on individuals the burden of working out their own fortune, the stimulus to competitive effort is very great. To an extent of course this is healthy. We have seen what would be some of the ill-effects of suppressing competition. But in all the great commercial and industrial centres, that which originally is advantageous becomes hurtful from excess. A character intrinsically selfish is produced, and a morality in business dealings to which altruism is utterly foreign. In fact, as we view the great commercial societies, we must, I think, concede that the theory and practice of business transactions between men is almost absolutely egoistic. To buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest, to exercise skill in the selection of commodities and in the disposition of them according to the laws of supply and demand, is not the whole of the matter. It is inculcated as a maxim of sound business policy to take advantage of the weakness of your adversary, with as little regard to the consequences to him as the soldier in battle is regardless of the effect upon the man he strikes down. Who ever considers, in making a bargain or enforcing it, the consequences to the other party? That is his business! Caveat emptor!' is the sentiment. Business is business, and charity and benevolence are outside matters. That the consequences of business victories are often appalling to the party at a disadvantage is perfectly apparent. They depress his energies, annihilate his hopes, take away subsistence from himself and his family, and actually crush out his life. He is often ruined socially, mentally, morally, and physically; while the man who ruins him goes to church and teaches his Sunday-school pupils to love their neighbours as themselves! I do not intend to say that these evils always befall a man who gets the worst of a trade or a course of dealings; nor do I mean to aver that a desire to make a profit from one's transactions is not legitimate. If it were not, commerce and trade would soon cease altogether. But what I do deprecate and condemn is the principle that the trader or the operator is bound in business only to consider himself and his own interest, and has no moral responsibility for the effects of his own acts. And that from just such a theory as this ruin abundantly flows to many individuals does not admit of question. It will doubtless seem ridiculous to the average business man to be told that he has any concern in his business but to make money. The value of philanthropy he will recognise; he will be kind to his family, benevolent to his neighbour, perhaps, by pecuniary contributions, a supporter of charitable institutions; but there arises the limit of his altruistic vision. In his countinghouse he is hard, merciless, uncompromising. He is in another world, in a sphere where charity is out of place. Practically, then, to him business is war. Certainly the christian religion does not sanction this doctrine. Numbers of those who practically follow it are adherents of christianity and profess to adopt the christian teachings. Though they are taught better things, they grow callous to the lessons of the pulpit; or if their conscience suffers they esteem a liberal contribution to the plate or box to be sufficient atonement for their sins, and resume their evil practices on the morrow. But it does seem surprising how little effect the repeated and reiterated precepts of the New Testament, supported by a wealth of illustration, and enforced with great eloquence, has upon the business morals of church congregations. The foundation of all commercial dealings is the idea of exchange on equal terms. The minds of the buyer and seller meet upon the conviction on the part of the buyer that (to him) what he gets is at least equivalent to what he gives, and on the part of the seller that what he receives is (to him) equal to what he parts with. In the most primitive form of trade each party brings his goods, exposes them to view, and an exchange is negotiated. It often happens, of course, that what the buyer gets is of much more value to him than to the seller, or, conversely, that the price paid is of more value to the seller than the goods parted with. This springs from the different circumstances of individuals or from their different degrees of knowledge; and out of this fact arise the laws of supply and demand, which largely determine market value. In addition, the natural value of articles themselves has its influence, depending partly upon their rarity and partly upon the cost of producing them, including in the latter the expense of bringing to market. It cannot be expected that every trader will furnish eyes or brains for the other party to the trade. Nor can it be reasonably required that before he concludes the bargain he make an inquisition into the other's circumstances with a view of determining whether or not the trade will also be advantageous for the latter. But it can be demanded, and the social interest demands it, that a person shall not deliberately and knowingly take advantage of the necessities of the other party, or of his ignorance, to get what he receives without giving the fair, usual, normal equivalent in exchange. The moral law exacts this. But the readiness to take this advantage is one of the commonest features of business; and the promptness displayed in resenting any criticism of such action shows the extent to which the refusal to admit altruistic principles into business practice has gone. Yet the hardship which often occurs by reason of this refusal is very apparent. And where the necessity which gives the advantage is created by the efforts of him who profits thereby, the injustice is very gross. This is exemplified in the instances where 'corners' in grain or other commodities are effected by purchasing as much as possible of all the existing stock. To be sure, sometimes and under some conditions speculation is advantageous to the common weal. Mill, for instance, contends' that while some speculators do enrich themselves it is by the losses of other speculators alone, the whole course of transactions being rather to the advantage of the general public. But, on the other hand, the distress which speculative operations cause is often widespread and terrible; while at least every successful attempt to create an artificial scarcity which shall bring ruin and woe upon others, is as devilish as it would be to lead them into a chamber of tortures and then extort a heavy price of release. Morality cannot lay down in advance an imperative rule for every case. But it does put upon the individual an obligation of humanity and social duty to have an altruistic consideration of the effects of his business action; to abate his eagerness for profit and success when he is bringing suffering upon other people; if he 1 Political Economy, Book IV. chap. ii. has any christianity to take it along to his counting-house, and if he has none to get some and bring it there. The disregard of this obligation, not alone in practice but in theory also, is a very serious evil of the day. We actually find the doctrine that business is war furnishing the standards of business morality. In the face of the general principle of all social ethics, namely, that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is to be secured, in the face of the general recognition of the Golden Rule, as the true precept of conduct, in the midst of general philanthropy and high intelligence, we are confronted with the methods of the cut-throat not alone put into practice but sanctioned by common sentiment within the whole sphere of business dealings between man and man! It is an inevitable result of such a system of belief and of procedure that the notion that all is fair in war comes to pervade the commercial struggle. The passage from negative and indirect to positive and direct fraud is easy. Fraud in all its forms becomes prevalent, unchecked save by the laws, means of evading which ingenuity will readily supply. And there is much so insidious that the tribunals cannot detect or establish it even if suspected. There is a wide range within which intelligent selfishness, intent only on its own aims, can operate with success. The sharpness which is so common among business men, and which indeed is so necessary in a business career, bears ample witness to the existence of common practices of deceit, petty and grand cheating, rogueries and rascalities of all sorts and descriptions, contrary to the spirit of fair dealing, though perhaps just beyond the reach of the law. That such a condition must also be fruitful in crime, ever and anon breaking out, is not only a reasonable anticipation but is an abundantly verified fact. Finally, the outcome of this push and scramble conducted by force and fraud, in which it is understood from the outset that the devil takes the hindmost, is that certain individuals emerge, seared, scarred, and hardened, having in their possession wealth and the power which wealth gives, holding thereby a control over their fellows in greater or less degree, and enjoying a greater or less monopoly of many of the good things of life; while of those whom they have surpassed some are still in the midst of toil and struggle, some are hopelessly thrown out and past the chance of recovery, while others are dead, destroyed by the fierceness of the contest and the sense of their own failure. This is not a pleasant picture of industrial society, but it is not overdrawn. Everyone knows S |