|
By Rev. A. Powell Davies D.D.
October 16, 1949
For almost half a century now, if not for longer, the economic and
social system known as capitalism has had what psychologists call an
insecurity feeling. Even when it has been most aggressive, it has
had to contend with an inner uncertainty, a persistent self-doubt of
its own virtue, its own morality, its own integrity. When under
attack, instead of defending itself on moral grounds it has chosen
to emphasize its practical success. Under what other system,
capitalists have asked, could such spectacular material progress
have been made? Look, they have said, at the miracles of mass
production! See how the multitude has benefited from the
profit-making system! But what they have not said is that capitalism
is a good system ethically, or that its moral standards are high
ones.
Instead, they have spoken of the selfishness of human nature, which
cannot get along without material incentives. Who will take risks,
they asked, or exert themselves in business enterprises unless there
is something in it for themselves? Socialism may be all very well
from an idealist's standpoint, but we are not living in an
idealist's world. In the world in which we actually are living, only
capitalism can supply incentives for material prosperity.
And thus, in the ethical sphere if not in the economic or the
so-called practical, the defenders of capitalism have been
apologetic. Either openly or by implication, they have admitted that
socialism may be ethically superior.
But is it? That is the question I would like to examine this
morning. It is a very large question, so large that if we are to
treat it usefully we shall have to limit ourselves rather rigorously
to its inner boundaries. We shall therefore merely note in passing
that it has become a very urgent question, forced upon us by the
fact that in the last thirty years a great part of the earth's
population has abandoned capitalism and is now living under one or
another of the various systems of socialism. This means--and we
cannot close our eyes to the possibility of it--that the United
States, too, may sooner or later abandon capitalism, for socialism
seems to be the predominant trend. I say that we can only stop to
notice this in passing, and the same thing is true of the various
factors, not directly ethical, which are operating to make
capitalism more difficult to retain. Some of these factors, so far
as Americans are concerned, are operating from without rather than
within: that is to say, if other countries give up the capitalist
system, it becomes harder and harder for the United States to hold
on to it, even if that is what Americans want. The reason is in the
nature of international relationships, economic, political and all
other.
There are also factors, however, which are operating just as
strongly from within. The dilemmas of the capitalist system have not
as yet been solved, and many of the people are impatient of the
slowness of our social progress.
But to all this, as I say, we can pay no heed this morning, or we
shall not have time to discuss the question we have set ourselves.
Irrespective of whether socialism is advancing and capitalism
retreating, or of how much freedom of decision may still remain to
us, let us compare the two systems ethically. Is it true that,
measured by ethical standards, capitalism is inferior?
Apparently, many churchmen seem to think so. Most of us have
noticed, I suppose, that the churches are becoming friendlier to
socialism. In Europe, this has been going on for a long time. The
first British socialist leaders were not Marxists but Methodists:
lay preachers whose moral repugnance for the poverty caused by
economic exploitation led them step by step to reject the capitalist
system entirely. On the continent, the churches' interest in
socialism has been more doctrinal. In many cases, theology and
Marxism, after a period of somewhat embarrassed flirtation, have
attempted a sort of uncomfortable matrimony. Except, of course, in
the case of the Roman Catholic Church, which has remained quite
celibate as to Marxism, but has flirted almost openly with fascism.
In the United States, however, the process has been slower and its
outlines less distinct. Radical church leaders have not so much
embraced socialism as repudiated capitalism. But I think it is a
fact, today, that some of the most vigorous among them are fairly
close to socialism.
The thing to notice in this, so far as our present purpose is
concerned, is not that such a fact may be counted lamentable but
that it arises because the churchmen concerned, whether here or
abroad, have come to believe that capitalism is ethically
inadequate. It has been weighed in the balances, they tell us, and
found wanting. But we seldom hear of ethical deficiencies in
socialism: only of practical ones. And even the practical ones seem
less easy to contend for, now that so many countries appear to be
getting along fairly well under socialist regimes. Or at least
almost as well as the United States did, a few years ago, in a
capitalist depression.
What are we to say, then, of what is implied in all this: of the
ethical claim for socialism? And of the ethical condemnation of
capitalism?
Perhaps before we say anything more we had better have some working
definitions. Not academic definitions, because that would involve us
in endless argument, and in any case they would not be very useful
for our purpose. By capitalism, let us mean the system which has
prevailed in the Western world from the coming of the industrial
revolution until recently, and let us include within its categories
not only the classical capitalism, so called, of the nineteenth
century, but also the changes and adaptations which have taken place
subsequently. From the ethical standpoint, the distinguishing
characteristics of capitalism are the profit motive and a strong
attachment to freedom.
By socialism, let us intend those systems, whether parliamentary or
other, which claim to get rid of the profit-making motive and which
operate through government management and control. There is, I know,
a wide divergence between some of these systems, both actual and
proposed, and we shall presently have to take account of that. There
is all the difference in the world, for instance, between British
socialism and Soviet communism. Nevertheless, both intend to do away
with the profit motive and both believe that by doing so a higher
ethical position will be reached.
Concerning this common aim of the various socialist systems, we
should perhaps cite some testimony. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
in the Communist Manifesto, tell us that "the theory of Communism
may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property."
According to Joseph Stalin, in a speech at Sverdloff University in
April, 1924, as soon as classes have been abolished and the means of
production finally removed from the hands of capitalists, the
dictatorship of the proletariat will be over and even the Communist
Party itself will disappear. We will assume that he meant it. If so,
the Soviet intent would be similar in the end to the socialist aims
of other countries. The profit motive would be ended. There would
thereafter be no need for tyranny, and so--according to the
communist contention--socialism would be, not dictatorial but free
and voluntary.
At this point, however, do as we will, our definition takes us into
argument. In the case of Sovietism, freedom is only a promise and
unless appearances amazingly deceive us, a promise which is very
unlikely to be kept. No people, as yet, which has come under Soviet
control, has increased its freedom, and there is no basis whatever,
beyond the promises of Soviet spokesmen, for supposing that any
people ever will. On the contrary, in order to remain in power, the
Soviet leaders must maintain what has come to be called a "police
state," and there is nothing visible in their procedures which makes
it likely that Sovietism will end up as freedom.
If therefore, we believe that freedom is ethically nobler than
slavery, and that for the sake of freedom it is worth while to give
up some other things, we shall have to say that the Soviet variety
of socialism is most assuredly not superior to capitalism, since
capitalism, whatever its faults, does permit people to remain fairly
free.
Moreover, if it be claimed that the capitalist system degrades
people through its admission of the profit motive, it will have to
be noticed that the Soviet system, in spite of eliminating the
profit motive, or attempting to do so, degrades people much more
seriously. For what else is it but degradation when freedom of
information, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of
assembly, freedom of every kind is suppressed? And what can it be
but degradation when people are forcibly prevented from having a
share in deciding their own way of life, their own future, their own
destiny? Not to mention the gross degradation of slave camps and
enforced labor; or the degradation of unjust imprisonment and death.
Nor is this the end of the matter, as we all know. But it is
sufficient to exclude the claim of Sovietism that it is ethically
superior to capitalism. For here we are comparing fact with fact:
the facts of capitalism, some of which have been very bad, such for
instance as pauperization, child labor, economic imperialism,
unbridled greed for profits--such facts as these--with the facts of
Sovietism which are much worse. Moreover, while the worst features
of capitalism have at least in part been remedied, the evils of
Sovietism appear worse now than at the beginning. To the extent,
therefore, that Sovietism is socialism, it must be judged ethically
inferior to capitalism, and by a wide margin, on the actual basis of
the record.
But then, there are many socialists who would say so, too. They wish
the word socialism to be reserved for parliamentary socialism, or
socialism with civil rights; in short, for socialism as it obtains,
for example, in England at the present time. This is a distinction
which, for my own part, I am happy to accept. If the term communism
could be reserved for the Soviet system, and perhaps for such others
as that of Yugoslavia, and the word socialism for the British system
and whatever counterparts may presently emerge, it would doubtless
be a good thing.
Here, however, we can no longer compare fact with fact. For the
British kind of socialist--let us call him the civil rights
socialist--would demand that we take into consideration not only
what socialism has accomplished but what it promises. This makes
comparison somewhat difficult and I must confess to certain
apprehensions as to whether the promises in question can really be
fulfilled. But for the purpose of the present discussion I will
assume that they can, or at least that some of them can.
|
