|
Very well, then: Is socialism of this kind ethically superior?
Certainly it is ethically in a strong position when, in the
aftermath of war, it supplies milk and orange juice to every child
in Britain on an equal basis. Such an action, it seems to me, must
be counted ethically superior to the negligence of a capitalism
which has not thought it necessary to do the equivalent. But then, I
see no reason whatever why a capitalist system should not provide
milk and orange juice for children and still remain capitalist.
Indeed, as to milk, a capitalist system, namely, our own, is
actually doing so, in part. And such benefits could be extended much
more widely without adopting socialism as a system.
We therefore cannot accept this widely cited instance as an evidence
of the ethical superiority of the socialist system, but only as an
index of the justice and benevolence of the government--any
government, whether socialist or capitalist--which distributes milk
to children. The real question is as to whether it is
better--ethically better--to distribute milk to children without
anyone making a profit out of it. I do not mean by this that no
profits are made on milk and orange juice in England, at the present
time, but I assume that this is what the socialist plan intends. I
repeat, therefore: the question is, Is it ethically better to
provide commodities, not only milk but anything whatever, without a
profit being made?
In giving my answer, perhaps I should warn the congregation that I
may sound a trifle shocking, not only to socialists who may be
present, but also to those capitalists who tacitly assume that
profit-making, however necessary, implies a lower motivation. For,
as it seems to me, provided the profit be reasonable, it is not
ethically inferior that there be a profit. And I will tell you why.
Socialism does not provide milk without profit-making because it has
expelled selfishness from the human heart, but only because it
controls the production and distribution of milk. In other words, a
capitalist society that taxes itself to provide milk for children at
a reasonable profit to producers and distributors is just as
meritorious, just as humane, as a socialist society whose government
does it with the aid of people who work for wages, without anyone
getting a profit.
The reason socialist governments do these things, and the reason
they are elected for promising to do them, is that capitalist
systems are too reluctant, too slow. What a capitalist society will
not do in freedom, the socialist government does by compulsion. And
it is this that brings us to the crux of the matter--I mean
ethically. (And I remind you once more that it is the ethical
consideration alone with which we are concerned this morning.)
Socialism is not an ethical advance; socialism is an ethical
compromise.
Because people are not ethically good enough to do what
they ought to do on their own initiative, socialism makes them do
it. But this is not ethically nobler; it certainly does not imply a
higher view of human nature. On the contrary, it concedes that human
beings are so loath to do right that they have to be compelled to do
it. When socialism rather than capitalism distributes milk to
children, it is not necessarily more of the milk of human kindness
that is being distributed--or even more of the milk of cows! It is
merely that more of the transaction is under the management of the
government.
I do not mean by this that socialists are not idealists. They often
are. I think they usually are. They want a wider justice, a better,
happier life not for themselves alone but for all mankind. This is
ethically a high motive. But it is equally high when a capitalist
wants the same things. To say that one is higher and the other lower
arises, so it seems to me, from a false perception of the facts.
Ethically, both are equal, so far as aspiration is concerned.
But then, someone will say, capitalists do not desire these things
as much as socialists desire them. I agree. But this is not because
capitalists believe in profits but because they are inadequate as
human beings. They could desire these things; they could bring them
about--and within the capitalist system. But when they fail to do
so, and socialism steps in and compels such things to be brought
about, it is not because, ethically, a higher level has been
reached, but because the people have despaired of the higher level.
They have said, Men will not do what they ought without being
compelled to do it; so we shall have to compel them. We shall have
to compel ourselves. We are not good enough to do as we ought
without compulsion; so we must deal with ourselves as we are. We
cannot master our greed, so we will ask the government to take away
the temptation. We cannot be just on our own initiative--not enough
of us all at the same time to make the system work--so we shall have
to be ordered to do what we should have done on our own account.
Socialism, therefore, in spite of the high aspirations of its
idealists, eventually comes about, not because of idealism, but
because of despair. That is how it came about in England. Not
because the people wanted socialism, but because they did not want
the evils of capitalism. It was not the charm of Clement Attlee that
won for the socialists the British vote; no, it was the memory of
Neville Chamberlain. Rather than have what they had in the 1930's,
they would accept something which, in itself, they didn't very much
want. They would even give away a part of their freedom because they
could not trust themselves and each other to act fairly on a
voluntary basis.
That is what happened, and that is what will always happen, or so I
believe, in every instance where socialism displaces capitalism. It
will not be out of high aspirations, or because the people are
utopians, but out of despair and because there is no other tolerable
alternative. This, quite obviously, is not ethically superior. It is
merely what happens when capitalism will not remedy its faults. To
put it into a sentence, socialism is first proposed by idealists and
optimists, but finally adopted by defeatists and pessimists.
When therefore, churchmen draw closer to socialism and say it is
the necessary outcome of religious idealism, they are mistaken. It
is the necessary outcome not of religion but of irreligion; that is
to say, it is the necessary outcome of the evils of the human heart
which prevent us from doing voluntarily what we are therefore
obliged to do from compulsion.
As to further aspects of the question, I am saying nothing today. We
have remained close to one particular inquiry, the only one with
which we were concerned: is socialism ethically superior to
capitalism? And the answer is, or so I would affirm, that in itself
socialism is not superior. From the viewpoint of religion, there is
no more evil in the profits of a capitalist than in the vanity of a
socialist politician. The one seeks money, the other, notoriety.
Both may do a great deal of good; and also some evil. A socialist's
hunger for power can be as treacherous a temptation as a
capitalist's greed for wealth. Ethically, men are not necessarily
better because they adopt one system rather than another. But
ethically they are better for what they do voluntarily than for what
they are compelled to do, even though they themselves consent to the
compulsion.
What it comes to, then, is this: what we are ethically is what we
are as people, not as units in a system. That one system may be
better than another, I fully agree. For my own part, my preference
is for a capitalism, reformed and regulated in the public interest;
and the reason for my preference is that such a capitalism leaves
more room for liberty and encourages ethical maturity and voluntary
righteousness. Compulsory systems, paternalistic and authoritarian,
foster attitudes which are ethically not grown up. Not, you
understand, that I think regulation by the government is at the
present time unnecessary. Far from it! I recognize as well as any
man that a considerable amount of government compulsion and control
are indispensable. But I would like to see it kept as little as
possible. Again and again, I am in favor of compulsion from
practical necessity, but I regret the need of it. I lament the evils
that require coercive measures to correct them. I support such
measures because I must. But I do not deceive myself about their
ethical significance. What I would like to see is the voluntary
level kept as high as possible. I love freedom. I want more freedom
than any socialist system, or so I fear, would eventually permit.
For human nature under either system would exploit the weaknesses of
that particular system, and I fear the weaknesses of compulsory
systems more than those of voluntary ones.
Yet I am quite sure that more and more compulsion will come --here
in America just as certainly as elsewhere--if we do not use our
freedom better: use it in restraint of selfishness and in the
general welfare.
Nevertheless, ethically it is the voluntary that is higher: that
which truly lives in the hearts of people and supplies the higher
motivation. And as to religious sanction for this view, it was given
long ago. You will recognize the words. "If I bestow all my goods to
feed the poor...and have not love, it profiteth me nothing." In
other words, no matter what the economic system I approve, the final
test is the true quality of my own motivation. If I bestow all my
goods--mine and everybody else's--to feed the poor, even through
acts of government, through changes in the economic and social
system, it "profiteth me nothing": neither me nor anybody else,
ethically, unless the fullness of it is in my heart. That is the
test, and there is no other--ethically.
And so, in these days of many changes, these days so fraught with
danger, yet so rich with promise, let us remind ourselves once more
of what for many centuries mankind has labored to learn, only to
forget: that the laws of righteousness are written first of all in
the human heart, and that greater than all systems is the greatness
of the soul.
---------------
Prayer: O God, whose ways are not our ways, and whose thoughts are
higher than our thoughts, teach us how to change our ways and raise
the level of our thoughts, and what we learn, teach us not to
forget. Amen.
|
