If this British peace of the nineteenth century is to be taken as a

significant indication of what may be looked for under a régime of peace

at large, with due allowance for what is obviously necessary to be

allowed for, then what is held in promise would appear to be an era of

unexampled commercial prosperity, of investment and business enterprise

on a scale hitherto not experienced. These developments will bring their

necessary consequences affecting the life of the community, and some of

the consequences it should be possible to foresee. The circumstances

conditioning this prospective era of peace and prosperity will

necessarily differ from the corresponding circumstances that

conditioned the Victorian peace, and many of these points of difference

it is also possible to forecast in outline with a fair degree of

confidence. It is in the main these economic factors going to condition

the civilisation of the promised future that will have to be depended on

to give the cue to any student interested in the prospective unfolding

of events.

The scheme of law and order governing all modern nations, both in the

conduct of their domestic affairs and in their national policies, is in

its controlling elements the scheme worked out through British (and

French) experience in the eighteenth century and earlier, as revised and

further accommodated in the nineteenth century. Other peoples,

particularly the Dutch, have of course had their part in the derivation

and development of this modern scheme of institutional principles, but

it has after all been a minor part; so that the scheme at large would

not differ very materially, if indeed it should differ sensibly, from

what it is, even if the contribution of these others had not been had.

The backward nations, as e.g., Germany, Russia, Spain, etc., have of

course contributed substantially nothing but retardation and

maladjustment to this modern scheme of civil life; whatever may be due

to students resident in those countries, in the way of scholarly

formulation. This nineteenth century scheme it is proposed to carry over

into the new era; and the responsible spokesmen of the projected new

order appear to contemplate no provision touching this scheme of law and

order, beyond the keeping of it intact in all substantial respects.

When and in so far as the projected peace at large takes effect,

international interests will necessarily fall somewhat into the

background, as being no longer a matter of precarious equilibration,

with heavy penalties in the balance; and diplomacy will consequently

become even more of a make-believe than today--something after the

fashion of a game of bluff played with irredeemable "chips." Commercial,

that is to say business, enterprise will consequently come in for a more

undivided attention and be carried on under conditions of greater

security and of more comprehensive trade relations. The population of

the pacified world may be expected to go on increasing somewhat as in

the recent past; in which connection it is to be remarked that not more

than one-half, presumably something less than one-half, of the available

agricultural resources have been turned to account for the civilised

world hitherto. The state of the industrial arts, including means of

transport and communication, may be expected to develop farther in the

same general direction as before, assuming always that peace conditions

continue to hold. Popular intelligence, as it is called,--more properly

popular education,--may be expected to suffer a further advance;

necessarily so, since it is a necessary condition of any effectual

advance in the industrial arts,--every appreciable technological advance

presumes, as a requisite to its working-out in industry, an augmented

state of information and of logical facility in the workmen under whose

hands it is to take effect.

Of the prescriptive rights carried over into the new era, under the

received law and order, the rights of ownership alone may be expected to

have any material significance for the routine of workday life; the

other personal rights that once seemed urgent will for everyday purposes

have passed into a state of half-forgotten matter-of-course. As now, but

in an accentuated degree, the rights of ownership will, in effect,

coincide and coalesce with the rights of investment and business

management. The market--that is to say the rule of the price-system in

all matters of production and livelihood--may be expected to gain in

volume and inclusiveness; so that virtually all matters of industry and

livelihood will turn on questions of market price, even beyond the

degree in which that proposition holds today. The progressive extension

and consolidation of investments, corporate solidarity, and business

management may be expected to go forward on the accustomed lines, as

illustrated by the course of things during the past few decades. Market

conditions should accordingly, in a progressively increased degree, fall

under the legitimate discretionary control of businessmen, or syndicates

of businessmen, who have the disposal of large blocks of invested

wealth,--"big business," as it is called, should reasonably be expected

to grow bigger and to exercise an increasingly more unhampered control

of market conditions, including the money market and the labor market.

With such improvements in the industrial arts as may fairly be expected

to come forward, and with the possible enhancement of industrial

efficiency which should follow from a larger scale of organisation, a

wider reach of transport and communication, and an increased

population,--with these increasing advantages on the side of productive

industry, the per-capita product as well as the total product should be

increased in a notable degree, and the conditions of life should

possibly become notably easier and more attractive, or at least more

conducive to efficiency and personal comfort, for all concerned. Such

would be the first and unguarded inference to be drawn from the premises

of the case as they offer themselves in the large; and something of that

kind is apparently what floats before the prophetic vision of the

advocates of a league of nations for the maintenance of peace at large.

These premises, and the inferences so drawn from them, may be further

fortified and amplified in the same sense on considering that certain

very material economies also become practicable, and should take effect

"in the absence of disturbing causes," on the establishment of such a

peace at large. It will of course occur to all thoughtful persons that

armaments must be reduced, perhaps to a minimum, and that the cost of

these things, in point of expenditures as well as of man-power spent in

the service, would consequently fall off in a corresponding measure. So

also, as slight further reflection will show, would the cost of the

civil service presumably fall off very appreciably; more particularly

the cost of this service per unit of service rendered. Some such climax

of felicities might be looked for by hopeful persons, in the absence of

disturbing causes.

Under the new dispensation the standard of living, that is to say the

standard of expenditure, would reasonably be expected to advance in a

very appreciable degree, at least among the wealthy and well-to-do; and

by pressure of imitative necessity a like effect would doubtless also be

had among the undistinguished mass. It is not a question of the standard

of living considered as a matter of the subsistence minimum, or even a

standard of habitually prevalent creature comfort, particularly not

among the wealthy and well-to-do. These latter classes have long since

left all question of material comfort behind in their accepted standards

of living and in the continued advance of these standards. For these

classes who are often spoken of euphemistically as being "in easy

circumstances," it is altogether a question of a standard of reputable

expenditure, to be observed on pain of lost self-respect and of lost

reputation at large. As has been remarked in an earlier passage, wants

of this kind are indefinitely extensible. So that some doubt may well be

entertained as to whether the higher productive efficiency spoken of

will necessarily make the way of life easier, in view of this need of a

higher standard of expenditure, even when due account is taken of the

many economies which the new dispensation is expected to make

practicable.

One of the effects to be looked for would apparently be an increased

pressure on the part of aspiring men to get into some line of business

enterprise; since it is only in business, as contrasted with the

industrial occupations, that anyone can hope to find the relatively

large income required for such an expensive manner of life as will bring

any degree of content to aspirants for pecuniary good repute. So it

should follow that the number of businessmen and business concerns would

increase up to the limit of what the traffic could support, and that the

competition between these rival, and in a sense over-numerous, concerns

would push the costs of competition to the like limit. In this respect

the situation would be of much the same character as what it now is,

with the difference that the limit of competitive expenditures would be

rather higher than at present, to answer to the greater available margin

of product that could be devoted to this use; and that the competing

concerns would be somewhat more numerous, or at least that the aggregate

expenditure on competitive enterprise would be somewhat larger; as,

e.g., costs of advertising, salesmanship, strategic litigation,

procuration of legislative and municipal grants and connivance, and the

like.

It is always conceivable, though it may scarcely seem probable, that

these incidents of increased pressure of competition in business traffic

might eventually take up all the slack, and leave no net margin of

product over what is available under the less favorable conditions of

industry that prevail today; more particularly when this increased

competition for business gains is backed by an increased pressure of

competitive spending for purposes of a reputable appearance. All this

applies in retail trade and in such lines of industry and public service

as partakes of the nature of retail trade, in the respect that

salesmanship and the costs of salesmanship enter into their case in an

appreciable measure; this is an extensive field, it is true, and

incontinently growing more extensive with the later changes in the

customary methods of marketing products; but it is by no means anything

like the whole domain of industrial business, and by no means a field in

which business is carried on without interference of a higher control

from outside its own immediate limits.

All this generously large and highly expensive and profitable field of

trade and of trade-like industry, in which the businessmen in charge

deal somewhat directly with a large body of customers, is always subject

to limitations imposed by the condition of the market; and the condition

of the market is in part not under the control of these businessmen, but

is also in part controlled by large concerns in the background; which in

their turn are after all also not precisely free agents; in fact not

much more so than their cousins in the retail trade, being confined in

all their motions by the constraint of the price-system that dominates

the whole and gathers them all in its impersonal and inexorable net.

There is a colloquial saying among businessmen, that they are not doing

business for their health; which being interpreted means that they are

doing business for a price. It is out of a discrepancy in price, between

purchase and sale, or between transactions which come to the same result

as purchase and sale, that the gains of business are drawn; and it is in

terms of price that these gains are rated, amassed and funded. It is

necessary, for a business concern to achieve a favorable balance in

terms of price; and the larger the balance in terms of price the more

successful the enterprise. Such a balance can not be achieved except by

due regard to the conditions of the market, to the effect that dealings

must not go on beyond what will yield a favorable balance in terms of

price between income and outgo. As has already been remarked above, the

prescriptive and indispensable recourse in all this conduct of business

is sabotage, limitation of supply to bring a remunerative price result.

The new dispensation offers two new factors bearing on this businesslike

need of a sagacious sabotage, or rather it brings a change of

coefficients in two factors already familiar in business management: a

greater need, for gainful business, of resorting to such limitation of

traffic; and a greater facility of ways and means for enforcing the

needed restriction. So, it is confidently to be expected that in the

prospective piping time of peace the advance in the industrial arts will

continue at an accelerated rate; which may confidently be expected to

affect the practicable increased production of merchantable goods; from

which it follows that it will act to depress the prices of these goods;

from which it follows that if a profitable business is to be done in the

conduct of productive industry a greater degree of continence than

before will have to be exercised in order not to let prices fall to an

unprofitable figure; that is to say, the permissible output must be held

short of the productive capacity of such industry by a wider margin than

before. On the other hand, it is well known out of the experience of the

past few decades that a larger coalition of invested capital,

controlling a larger proportion of the output, can more effectually

limit the supply to a salutary maximum, such as will afford reasonable

profits. And with the new dispensation affording a freer scope for

business enterprise on conditions of greater security, larger coalitions

than before are due to come into bearing. So that the means will be at

hand competently to meet this more urgent need of a stricter limitation

of the output, in spite of any increased productive capacity conferred

on the industrial community by any conceivable advance in the industrial

arts. The outcome to be looked for should apparently be such an

effectual recourse to capitalistic sabotage as will neutralise any added

advantage that might otherwise accrue to the community from its

continued improvements in technology.

In spite of this singularly untoward conjuncture of circumstances to be

looked for, there need be no serious apprehension that capitalistic

sabotage, with a view to maintaining prices and the rate of profits,

will go all the way, to the result indicated, at least not on the

grounds so indicated alone. There is in the modern development of

technology, and confidently to be counted on, a continued flow of new

contrivances and expedients designed to supersede the old; and these are

in fact successful, in greater or less measure, in finding their way

into profitable use, on such terms as to displace older appliances,

underbid them in the market, and render them obsolete or subject to

recapitalisation on a lowered earning-capacity. So far as this

unremitting flow of innovations has its effect, that is to say so far as

it can not be hindered from having an effect, it acts to lower the

effectual cost of products to the consumer. This effect is but a partial

and somewhat uncertain one, but it is always to be counted in as a

persistent factor, of uncertain magnitude, that will affect the results

in the long run.

As has just been spoken of above, large coalitions of invested wealth

are more competent to maintain, or if need be to advance, prices than

smaller coalitions acting in severalty, or even when acting in

collusion. This state of the case has been well illustrated by the very

successful conduct of such large business organisations during the past

few decades; successful, that is, in earning large returns on the

investments engaged. Under the new dispensation, as has already been

remarked, coalitions should reasonably be expected to grow to a larger

size and achieve a greater efficiency for the same purpose.

The large gains of the large corporate coalitions are commonly ascribed

by their promoters, and by sympathetic theoreticians of the ancient

line, to economies of production made practicable by a larger scale of

production; an explanation which is disingenuous only so far as it needs

be. What is more visibly true on looking into the workings of these

coalitions in detail is that they are enabled to maintain prices at a

profitable, indeed at a strikingly profitable, level by such a control

of the output as would be called sabotage if it were put in practice by

interested workmen with a view to maintain wages. The effects of this

sagacious sabotage become visible in the large earnings of these

investments and the large gains which, now and again, accrue to their

managers. Large fortunes commonly are of this derivation.

In cases where no recapitalisation has been effected for a considerable

series of years the yearly earnings of such businesslike coalitions have

been known to approach fifty percent on the capitalised value. Commonly,

however, when earnings rise to a striking figure, the business will be

recapitalised on the basis of its earning-capacity, by issue of a stock

dividend, by reincorporation in a new combination with an increased

capitalisation, and the like. Such augmentation of capital not unusually

has been spoken of by theoretical writers and publicists as an increase

of the community's wealth, due to savings; an analysis of any given case

is likely to show that its increased capital value represents an

increasingly profitable procedure for securing a high price above cost,

by stopping the available output short of the productive capacity of the

industries involved. Loosely speaking, and within the limits of what the

traffic will bear, the gains in such a case are proportioned to the

deficiency by which the production or supply under control falls short

of productive capacity. So that the capitalisation in the case comes to

bear a rough proportion to the material loss which this organisation of

sabotage is enabled to inflict on the community at large; and instead of

its being a capitalisation of serviceable means of production it may,

now and again, come to little else than a capitalisation of chartered

sabotage.

Under the new dispensation of peace and security at large this manner of

capitalisation and business enterprise might reasonably be expected to

gain something in scope and security of operation. Indeed, there are few

things within the range of human interest on which an opinion may more

confidently be formed beforehand. If the rights of property, in their

extent and amplitude, are maintained intact as they are before the law

today, the hold which business enterprise on the large scale now has on

the affairs and fortunes of the community at large is bound to grow

firmer and to be used more unreservedly for private advantage under the

new conditions contemplated.

The logical result should be an accelerated rate of accumulation of the

country's wealth in the hands of a relatively very small class of

wealthy owners, with a relatively inconsiderable semi-dependent middle

class of the well-to-do, and with the mass of the population even more

nearly destitute than they are today. At the same time it is scarcely to

be avoided that this wholly dependent and impecunious mass of the

population must be given an appreciably better education than they have

today. The argument will return to the difficulties that are liable to

arise out of this conjuncture of facts, in the way of discontent and

possible disturbance.

* * * * *

Meantime, looking to the promise of the pacific future in the light of

the pacific past, certain further consequences, particularly

consequences of the economic order, that may reasonably be expected to

follow will also merit attention. The experience of the Victorian peace

is almost as pointed in its suggestion on this head as if it had been an

experiment made _ad hoc_; but with the reservation that the scale of

economic life, after all, was small in the Victorian era, and its pace

was slack, compared with what the twentieth century should have to offer

under suitable conditions of peace and pecuniary security. In the light

of this most instructive modern instance, there should appear to be in

prospect a growth of well-bred families resting on invested wealth and

so living on unearned incomes; larger incomes and consequently a more

imposingly well-bred body of gentlefolk, sustained and vouched for by a

more munificent expenditure on superfluities, than the modern world has

witnessed hitherto. Doubtless the resulting growth of gentlemen and

gentlewomen would be as perfect after their kind as these unexampled

opportunities of gentle breeding might be expected to engender; so that

even their British precursors on the trail of respectability would fall

somewhat into insignificance by comparison, whether in respect of

gentlemanly qualities or in point of cost per unit.

The moral, and even more particularly the aesthetic, value of such a

line of gentlefolk, and of the culture which they may be expected to

place on view,--this cultural side of the case, of course, is what one

would prefer to dwell on, and on the spiritual gains that might be

expected to accrue to humanity at large from the steady contemplation of

this meritorious respectability so displayed at such a cost.

But the prosaic necessity of the argument turns back to the economic and

civil bearing of this prospective development, this virtual bifurcation

of the pacified nation into a small number of gentlemen who own the

community's wealth and consume its net product in the pursuit of

gentility, on the one hand, and an unblest mass of the populace who do

the community's work on a meager livelihood tapering down toward the

subsistence minimum, on the other hand. Evidently, this prospective

posture of affairs may seem "fraught with danger to the common weal," as

a public spirited citizen might phrase it. Or, as it would be expressed

in less eloquent words, it appears to comprise elements that should

make for a change. At the same time it should be recalled, and the

statement will command assent on slight reflection, that there is no

avoiding substantially such a posture of affairs under the promised

régime of peace and security, provided only that the price-system stands

over intact, and the current rights of property continue to be held

inviolate. If the known principles of competitive gain and competitive

spending should need enforcement to that effect by an illustrative

instance, the familiar history of the Victorian peace is sufficient to

quiet all doubts.

Of course, the resulting articulation of classes in the community will

not be expected to fall into such simple lines of sheer contrast as this

scheme would indicate. The class of gentlefolk, the legally constituted

wasters, as they would be rated from the economic point of view, can not

be expected personally to take care of so large a consumption of

superfluities as this posture of affairs requires at their hands. They

would, as the Victorian peace teaches, necessarily have the assistance

of a trained corps of experts in unproductive consumption, the first and

most immediate of whom would be those whom the genial phrasing of Adam

Smith designates "menial servants." Beyond these would come the

purveyors of superfluities, properly speaking, and the large, indeed

redundant, class of tradespeople of high and low degree,--dependent in

fact but with an illusion of semi-dependence; and farther out again the

legal and other professional classes of the order of stewards, whose

duty it will be to administer the sources of income and receive,

apportion and disburse the revenues so devoted to a traceless

extinguishment.

There would, in other words, be something of a "substantial middle

class," dependent on the wealthy and on their expenditure of wealth, but

presumably imbued with the Victorian middle-class illusion that they are

of some account in their own right. Under the due legal forms and

sanctions this, somewhat voluminous, middle-class population would

engage in the traffic which is their perquisite, and would continue to

believe, in some passable fashion, that they touch the substance of

things at something nearer than the second remove. They would in great

part appear to be people of "independent means," and more particularly

would they continue in the hope of so appearing and of some time making

good the appearance. Hence their fancied, and therefore their

sentimental, interest would fall out on the side of the established law

and order; and they would accordingly be an element of stability in the

commonwealth, and would throw in their weight, and their voice, to

safeguard that private property and that fabric of prices and credit

through which the "income stream" flows to the owners of preponderant

invested wealth.

Judged on the state of the situation as it runs in our time, and

allowing for the heightened efficiency of large-scale investment and

consolidated management under the prospective conditions of added

pecuniary security, it is to be expected that the middle-class

population with "independent means" should come in for a somewhat meager

livelihood, provided that they work faithfully at their business of

managing pecuniary traffic to the advantage of their pecuniary

betters,--meager, that is to say, when allowance is made for the

conventionally large expenditure on reputable appearances which is

necessarily to be included in their standard of living. It lies in the

nature of this system of large-scale investment and enterprise that the

(pecuniarily) minor agencies engaged on a footing of ostensible

independence will come in for only such a share in the aggregate gains

of the community as it is expedient for the greater business interests

to allow them as an incentive to go on with their work as purveyors of

traffic to these greater business interests.

The current, and still more this prospective, case of the

quasi-self-directing middle class may fairly be illustrated by the case

of the American farmers, of the past and present. The American farmer

rejoices to be called "The Independent Farmer." He once was independent,

in a meager and toil-worn fashion, in the days before the price-system

had brought him and all his works into the compass of the market; but

that was some time ago. He now works for the market, ordinarily at

something like what is called a "living wage," provided he has

"independent means" enough to enable him by steady application to earn a

living wage; and of course, the market being controlled by the paramount

investment interests in the background, his work, in effect, inures to

their benefit; except so much as it may seem necessary to allow him as

incentive to go on. Also of course, these paramount investment interests

are in turn controlled in all their manoeuvres by the impersonal

exigencies of the price-system, which permits no vagaries in violation

of the rule that all traffic must show a balance of profit in terms of

price.

The Independent Farmer still continues to believe that in some occult

sense he still is independent in what he will do and what not; or

perhaps rather that he can by shrewd management retain or regain a

tolerable measure of such independence, after the fashion of what is

held to have been the posture of affairs in the days before the coming

of corporation finance; or at least he believes that he ought to have,

or to regain or reclaim, some appreciable measure of such independence;

which ought then, by help of the "independent means" which he still

treasures, to procure him an honest and assured livelihood in return for

an honest year's work. Latterly he, that is the common run of the

farmers, has been taking note of the fact that he is, as he apprehends

it, at a disadvantage in the market; and he is now taking recourse to

concerted action for the purpose of what might be called "rigging the

market" to his own advantage. In this he overlooks the impregnable

position which the party of the second part, the great investment

interests, occupy; in fact, he is counting without his host. Hitherto he

has not been convinced of his own helplessness. And with a fine fancy he

still imagines that his own interest is on the side of the propertied

and privileged classes; so that the farmer constituency is the chief

pillar of conservative law and order, particularly in all that touches

the inviolable rights of property and at every juncture where a division

comes on between those who live by investment and those who live by

work. In pecuniary effect, the ordinary American farmer, who legally

owns a moderate farm of the common sort, belongs among those who work

for a livelihood; such a livelihood as the investment interests find it

worth while to allow him under the rule of what the traffic will bear;

but in point of sentiment and class consciousness he clings to a belated

stand on the side of those who draw a profit from his work.

So it is also with the menial servants and the middle-class people of

"independent means," who are, however, in a position to see more clearly

their dependence on the owners of predominant wealth. And such, with a

further accentuation of the anomaly, may reasonably be expected to be

the further run of these relations under the promised régime of peace

and security. The class of well-kept gentlefolk will scarcely be called

on to stand alone, in case of a division between those who live by

investment and those who live by work; inasmuch as, for the calculable

future, it should seem a reasonable expectation that this very

considerable fringe of dependents and pseudo-independents will abide by

their time-tried principles of right and honest living, through good

days and evil, and cast in their lot unreservedly with that reputable

body to whom the control of trade and industry by investment assigns the

usufruct of the community's productive powers.

* * * * *

Something has already been said of the prospective breeding of pedigreed

gentlefolk under the projected régime of peace. Pedigree, for the

purpose in hand, is a pecuniary attribute and is, of course, a product

of funded wealth, more or less ancient. Virtually ancient pedigree can

be procured by well-advised expenditure on the conspicuous amenities;

that is to say pedigree effectually competent as a background of current

gentility. Gentlefolk of such syncopated pedigree may have to walk

circumspectly, of course; but their being in this manner put on their

good behavior should tend to heighten their effectual serviceability as

gentlefolk, by inducing a single-mindedness of gentility beyond what can

fairly be expected of those who are already secure in their tenure.

Except conventionally, there is no hereditary difference between the

standard gentlefolk and, say, their "menial servants," or the general

population of the farms and the industrial towns. This is a

well-established commonplace among ethnological students; which has, of

course, nothing to say with respect to the conventionally distinct lines

of descent of the "Best Families." These Best Families are nowise

distinguishable from the common run in point of hereditary traits; the

difference that makes the gentleman and the gentlewoman being wholly a

matter of habituation during the individual's life-time. It is something

of a distasteful necessity to call attention to this total absence of

native difference between the well-born and the common, but it is a

necessity of the argument in hand, and the recalling of it may,

therefore, be overlooked for once in a way. There is no harm and no

annoyance intended. The point of it all is that, on the premises which

this state of the case affords, the body of gentlefolk created by such

an accumulation of invested wealth will have no less of an effectual

cultural value than they would have had if their virtually ancient

pedigree had been actual.

At this point, again, the experience of the Victorian peace and the

functioning of its gentlefolk come in to indicate what may fairly be

hoped for in this way under this prospective régime of peace at large.

But with the difference that the scale of things is to be larger, the

pace swifter, and the volume and dispersion of this prospective leisure

class somewhat wider. The work of this leisure class--and there is

neither paradox nor inconsistency in the phrase--should be patterned on

the lines worked out by their prototypes of the Victorian time, but with

some appreciable accentuation in the direction of what chiefly

characterised the leisure class of that era of tranquility. The

characteristic feature to which attention naturally turns at this

suggestion is the tranquility that has marked that body of gentlefolk

and their code of clean and honest living. Another word than

"tranquility" might be hit upon to designate this characteristic animus,

but any other word that should at all adequately serve the turn would

carry a less felicitous suggestion of those upper-class virtues that

have constituted the substantial worth of the Victorian gentleman. The

conscious worth of these gentlefolk has been a beautifully complete

achievement. It has been an achievement of "faith without works," of

course; but, needless to say, that is as it should be, also of course.

The place of gentlefolk in the economy of Nature is tracelessly to

consume the community's net product, and in doing so to set a standard

of decent expenditure for the others emulatively to work up to as near

as may be. It is scarcely conceivable that this could have been done in

a more unobtrusively efficient manner, or with a more austerely virtuous

conviction of well-doing, than by the gentlefolk bred of the Victorian

peace. So also, in turn, it is not to be believed that the prospective

breed of gentlefolk derivable from the net product of the pacific

nations under the promised régime of peace at large will prove in any

degree less effective for the like ends. More will be required of them

in the way of a traceless consumption of superfluities and an unexampled

expensive standard of living. But this situation that so faces them may

be construed as a larger opportunity, quite as well as a more difficult

task.

A theoretical exposition of the place and cultural value of a leisure

class in modern life would scarcely be in place here; and it has also

been set out in some detail elsewhere.[10] For the purpose in hand it

may be sufficient to recall that the canons of taste and the standards

of valuation worked out and inculcated by leisure-class life have in all

ages run, with unbroken consistency, to pecuniary waste and personal

futility. In its economic bearing, and particularly in its immediate

bearing on the material well-being of the community at large, the

leadership of the leisure class can scarcely be called by a less

derogatory epithet than "untoward." But that is not the whole of the

case, and the other side should be heard. The leisure-class life of

tranquility, running detached as it does above the turmoil out of which

the material of their sustenance is derived, enables a growth of all

those virtues that mark, or make, the gentleman; and that affect the

life of the underlying community throughout, pervasively, by imitation;

leading to a standardisation of the everyday proprieties on a

presumably, higher level of urbanity and integrity than might be

expected to result in the absence of this prescriptive model.

[Footnote 10: Cf. _The Theory of the Leisure Class_, especially ch.

v.-ix. and xiv.]

_Integer vitae scelerisque purus_, the gentleman of assured station

turns a placid countenance to all those petty vexations of breadwinning

that touch him not. Serenely and with an impassive fortitude he faces

those common vicissitudes of life that are impotent to make or mar his

material fortunes and that can neither impair his creature comforts nor

put a slur on his good repute. So that without afterthought he deals

fairly in all everyday conjunctures of give and take; for they are at

the most inconsequential episodes to him, although the like might spell

irremediable disaster to his impecunious counterfoil among the common

men who have the community's work to do. In short, he is a gentleman, in

the best acceptation of the word,--unavoidably, by force of

circumstance. As such his example is of invaluable consequence to the

underlying community of common folk, in that it keeps before their eyes

an object lesson in habitual fortitude and visible integrity such as

could scarcely have been created except under such shelter from those

disturbances that would go to mar habitual fortitude and integrity.

There can be little doubt but the high example of the Victorian

gentlefolk has had much to do with stabilising the animus of the British

common man on lines of integrity and fair play. What else and more in

the way of habitual preconceptions he may, by competitive imitation, owe

to the same high source is not immediately in question here.

* * * * *

Recalling once more that the canon of life whereby folk are gentlefolk

sums itself up in the requirements of pecuniary waste and personal

futility, and that these requirements are indefinitely extensible, at

the same time that the management of the community's industry by

investment for a profit enables the owners of invested wealth to divert

to their own use the community's net product, wherewith to meet these

requirements, it follows that the community at large which provides this

output of product will be allowed so much as is required by their

necessary standard of living,--with an unstable margin of error in the

adjustment. This margin of error should tend continually to grow

narrower as the businesslike management of industry grows more efficient

with experience; but it will also continually be disturbed in the

contrary sense by innovations of a technological nature that require

continual readjustment. This margin is probably not to be got rid of,

though it may be expected to become less considerable under more settled

conditions.

It should also not be overlooked that the standard of living here spoken

of as necessarily to be allowed the working population by no means

coincides with the "physical subsistence minimum," from which in fact it

always departs by something appreciable. The necessary standard of

living of the working community is in fact made up of two

distinguishable factors: the subsistence minimum, and the requirements

of decorously wasteful consumption--the "decencies of life." These

decencies are no less requisite than the physical necessaries, in point

of workday urgency, and their amount is a matter of use and wont. This

composite standard of living is a practical minimum, below which

consumption will not fall, except by a fluctuating margin of error; the

effect being the same, in point of necessary consumption, as if it were

all of the nature of a physical subsistence minimum.

Loosely speaking, the arrangement should leave nothing appreciable over,

after the requirements of genteel waste and of the workday standard of

consumption have been met. From which in turn it should follow that the

rest of what is comprised under the general caption of "culture" will

find a place only in the interstices of leisure-class expenditure and

only at the hands of aberrant members of the class of the gently-bred.

The working population should have no effectual margin of time, energy

or means for other pursuits than the day's work in the service of the

price-system; so that aberrant individuals in this class, who might by

native propensity incline, e.g., to pursue the sciences or the fine

arts, should have (virtually) no chance to make good. It would be a

virtual suppression of such native gifts among the common folk, not a

definitive and all-inclusive suppression. The state of the case under

the Victorian peace may, again, be taken in illustration of the point;

although under the presumably more effectual control to be looked for in

the pacific future the margin might reasonably be expected to run

somewhat narrower, so that this virtual suppression of cultural talent

among the common men should come nearer a complete suppression.

The working of that free initiative that makes the advance of

civilisation, and also the greater part of its conservation, would in

effect be allowed only in the erratic members of the kept classes; where

at the same time it would have to work against the side-draught of

conventional usage, which discountenances any pursuit that is not

visibly futile according to some accepted manner of futility. Now under

the prospective perfect working of the price-system, bearers of the

banners of civilisation could effectually be drawn only from the kept

classes, the gentlefolk who alone would have the disposal of such free

income as is required for work that has no pecuniary value. And

numerically the gentlefolk are an inconsiderable fraction of the

population. The supply of competently gifted bearers of the community's

culture would accordingly be limited to such as could be drawn by

self-selection from among this inconsiderable proportion of the

community at large.

It may be recalled that in point of heredity, and therefore in point of

native fitness for the maintenance and advance of civilisation, there is

no difference between the gentlefolk and the populace at large; or at

least there is no difference of such a nature as to count in abatement

of the proposition set down above. Some slight, but after all

inconsequential, difference there may be, but such difference as there

is, if any, rather counts against the gentlefolk as keepers of the

cultural advance. The gentlefolk are derived from business; the

gentleman represents a filial generation of the businessman; and if the

class typically is gifted with any peculiar hereditary traits,

therefore, they should presumably be such as typically mark the

successful businessman--astute, prehensile, unscrupulous. For a

generation or two, perhaps to the scriptural third and fourth

generation, it is possible that a diluted rapacity and cunning may

continue to mark the businessman's well-born descendants; but these are

not serviceable traits for the conservation and advancement of the

community's cultural heritage. So that no consideration of special

hereditary fitness in the well-born need be entertained in this

connection.

As to the limitation imposed by the price-system on the supply of

candidates suited by native gift for the human work of civilisation; it

would no doubt, be putting the figure extravagantly high to say that the

gentlefolk, properly speaking, comprise as much as ten percent of the

total population; perhaps something less than one-half of that

percentage would still seem a gross overstatement. But, to cover loose

ends and vagrant cases, the gentlefolk may for the purpose be credited

with so high a percentage of the total population. If ten percent be

allowed, as an outside figure, it follows that the community's

scientists, artists, scholars, and the like individuals given over to

the workday pursuits of the human spirit, are by conventional

restriction to be drawn from one-tenth of the current supply of persons

suited by native gift for these pursuits. Or as it may also be

expressed, in so far as the projected scheme takes effect it should

result in the suppression of nine (or more) out of every ten persons

available for the constructive work of civilisation. The cultural

consequences to be looked for, therefore, should be quite markedly of

the conservative order.

Of course, in actual effect, the retardation or repression of

civilisation by this means, as calculated on these premises, should

reasonably be expected to count up to something appreciably more than

nine-tenths of the gains that might presumably be achieved in the

conceivable absence of the price-system and the régime of investment.

All work of this kind has much of the character of teamwork; so that the

efforts of isolated individuals count for little, and a few working in

more or less of concert and understanding will count for proportionally

much less than many working in concert. The endeavours of the

individuals engaged count cumulatively, to such effect that doubling

their forces will more than double the aggregate efficiency; and

conversely, reducing the number will reduce the effectiveness of their

work by something more than the simple numerical proportion. Indeed, an

undue reduction of numbers in such a case may lead to the total defeat

of the few that are left, and the best endeavours of a dwindling remnant

may be wholly nugatory. There is needed a sense of community and

solidarity, without which the assurance necessary to the work is bound

to falter and dwindle out; and there is also needed a degree of popular

countenance, not to be had by isolated individuals engaged in an

unconventional pursuit of things that are neither to be classed as

spendthrift decorum nor as merchantable goods. In this connection an

isolated one does not count for one, and more than the critical minimum

will count for several per capita. It is a case where the "minimal dose"

is wholly inoperative.

There is not a little reason to believe that consequent upon the

installation of the projected régime of peace at large and secure

investment the critical point in the repression of talent will very

shortly be reached and passed, so that the principle of the "minimal

dose" will come to apply. The point may readily be illustrated by the

case of many British and American towns and neighbourhoods during the

past few decades; where the dominant price-system and its commercial

standards of truth and beauty have over-ruled all inclination to

cultural sanity and put it definitively in abeyance. The cultural, or

perhaps the conventional, residue left over in these cases where

civilisation has gone stale through inefficiency of the minimal dose is

not properly to be found fault with; it is of a blameless character,

conventionally; nor is there any intention here to cast aspersion on the

desolate. The like effects of the like causes are to be seen in the

American colleges and universities, where business principles have

supplanted the pursuit of learning, and where the commercialisation of

aims, ideals, tastes, occupations and personnel is following much the

same lines that have led so many of the country towns effectually

outside the cultural pale. The American university or college is coming

to be an outlier of the price-system, in point of aims, standards and

personnel; hitherto the tradition of learning as a trait of

civilisation, as distinct from business, has not been fully displaced,

although it is now coming to face the passage of the minimal dose. The

like, in a degree, is apparently true latterly for many English, and

still more evidently for many German schools.

In these various instances of what may be called dry-rot or local blight

on the civilised world's culture the decline appears to be due not to a

positive infection of a malignant sort, so much as to a failure of the

active cultural ferment, which has fallen below the critical point of

efficacy; perhaps through an unintended refusal of a livelihood to

persons given over to cultivating the elements of civilisation; perhaps

through the conventional disallowance of the pursuit of any other ends

than competitive gain and competitive spending. Evidently it is

something much more comprehensive in this nature that is reasonably to

be looked for under the prospective régime of peace, in case the

price-system gains that farther impetus and warrant which it should come

in for if the rights of ownership and investment stand over intact, and

so come to enjoy the benefit of a further improved state of the

industrial arts and a further enlarged scale of operation and enhanced

rate of turnover.

* * * * *

To turn back to the point from which this excursion branched off. It has

been presumed all the while that the technological equipment, or the

state of the industrial arts, must continue to advance under the

conditions offered by this régime of peace at large. But the last few

paragraphs will doubtless suggest that such a single-minded addiction to

competitive gain and competitive spending as the stabilised and

amplified price-system would enjoin, must lead to an effectual

retardation, perhaps to a decline, of those material sciences on which

modern technology draws; and that the state of the industrial arts

should therefore cease to advance, if only the scheme of investment and

businesslike sabotage can be made sufficiently secure. That such may be

the outcome is a contingency which the argument will have to meet and to

allow for; but it is after all a contingency that need not be expected

to derange the sequence of events, except in the way of retardation.

Even without further advance in technological expedients or in the

relevant material sciences, there will still necessarily ensue an

effectual advance in the industrial arts, in the sense that further

organisation and enlargement of the material equipment and industrial

processes on lines already securely known and not to be forgotten must

bring an effectually enhanced efficiency of the industrial process as a

whole.

In illustration, it is scarcely to be assumed even as a tentative

hypothesis that the system of transport and communication will not

undergo extension and improvement on the lines already familiar, even in

the absence of new technological contrivances. At the same time a

continued increase of population is to be counted on; which has, for the

purpose in hand, much the same effect as an advance in the industrial

arts. Human contact and mutual understanding will necessarily grow wider

and closer, and will have its effect on the habits of thought prevalent

in the communities that are to live under the promised régime of peace.

The system of transport and communication having to handle a more

voluminous and exacting traffic, in the service of a larger and more

compact population, will have to be organised and administered on

mechanically drawn schedules of time, place, volume, velocity, and

price, of a still more exacting accuracy than hitherto. The like will

necessarily apply throughout the industrial occupations that employ

extensive plant or processes, or that articulate with industrial

processes of that nature; which will necessarily comprise a larger

proportion of the industrial process at large than hitherto.

As has already been remarked more than once in the course of the

argument, a population that lives and does its work, and such play as is

allowed it, in and by an exactingly articulate mechanical system of this

kind will necessarily be an "intelligent" people, in the colloquial

sense of the word; that is to say it will necessarily be a people that

uses printed matter freely and that has some familiarity with the

elements of those material sciences that underlie this mechanically

organised system of appliances and processes. Such a population lives by

and within the framework of the mechanistic logic, and is in a fair way

to lose faith in any proposition that can not be stated convincingly in

terms of this mechanistic logic. Superstitions are liable to lapse by

neglect or disuse in such a community; that is to say propositions of a

non-mechanistic complexion are liable to insensible disestablishment in

such a case; "superstition" in these premises coming to signify whatever

is not of this mechanistic, or "materialistic" character. An exception

to this broad characterisation of non-mechanistic propositions as

"superstition" would be matters that are of the nature of an immediate

deliverance of the senses or of the aesthetic sensibilities.

By a simile it might be said that what so falls under the caption of

"superstition" in such a case is subject to decay by inanition. It

should not be difficult to conceive the general course of such a decay

of superstitions under this unremitting discipline of mechanistic habits

of life. The recent past offers an illustration, in the unemotional

progress of decay that has overtaken religious beliefs in the more

civilised countries, and more particularly among the intellectually

trained workmen of the mechanical industries. The elimination of such

non-mechanistic propositions of the faith has been visibly going on, but

it has not worked out on any uniform plan, nor has it overtaken any

large or compact body of people consistently or abruptly, being of the

nature of obsolescence rather than of set repudiation. But in a slack

and unreflecting fashion the divestment has gone on until the aggregate

effect is unmistakable.

A similar divestment of superstitions is reasonably to be looked for

also in that domain of preconceptions that lies between the supernatural

and the mechanistic. Chief among these time-warped preconceptions--or

superstitions--that so stand over out of the alien past among these

democratic peoples is the institution of property. As is true of

preconceptions touching the supernatural verities, so here too the

article of use and wont in question will not bear formulation in

mechanistic terms and is not congruous with that mechanistic logic that

is incontinently bending the habits of thought of the common man more

and more consistently to its own bent. There is, of course, the

difference that while no class--apart from the servants of the

church--have a material interest in the continued integrity of the

articles of the supernatural faith, there is a strong and stubborn

material interest bound up with the maintenance of this article of the

pecuniary faith; and the class in whom this material interest vests are

also, in effect, invested with the coercive powers of the law.

The law, and the popular preconceptions that give the law its binding

force, go to uphold the established usage and the established

prerogatives on this head; and the disestablishment of the rights of

property and investment therefore is not a simple matter of obsolescence

through neglect. It may confidently be counted on that all the apparatus

of the law and all the coercive agencies of law and order, will be

brought in requisition to uphold the ancient rights of ownership,

whenever any move is made toward their disallowance or restriction. But

then, on the other hand, the movement to disallow or diminish the

prerogatives of ownership is also not to take the innocuous shape of

unstudied neglect. So soon, or rather so far, as the common man comes to

realise that these rights of ownership and investment uniformly work to

his material detriment, at the same time that he has lost the "will to

believe" in any argument that does not run in terms of the mechanistic

logic, it is reasonable to expect that he will take a stand on this

matter; and it is more than likely that the stand taken will be of an

uncompromising kind,--presumably something in the nature of the stand

once taken by recalcitrant Englishmen in protest against the

irresponsible rule of the Stuart sovereign. It is also not likely that

the beneficiaries under these proprietary rights will yield their ground

at all amicably; all the more since they are patently within their

authentic rights in insisting on full discretion in the disposal of

their own possessions; very much as Charles I or James II once were

within their prescriptive right,--which had little to say in the

outcome.

Even apart from "time immemorial" and the patent authenticity of the

institution, there were and are many cogent arguments to be alleged in

favor of the position for which the Stuart sovereigns and their

spokesmen contended. So there are and will be many, perhaps more, cogent

reasons to be alleged for the maintenance of the established law and

order in respect of the rights of ownership and investment. Not least

urgent, nor least real, among these arguments is the puzzling question

of what to put in the place of these rights and of the methods of

control based on them, very much as the analogous question puzzled the

public-spirited men of the Stuart times. All of which goes to argue that

there may be expected to arise a conjuncture of perplexities and

complications, as well as a division of interests and claims. To which

should be added that the division is likely to come to a head so soon as

the balance of forces between the two parties in interest becomes

doubtful, so that either party comes to surmise that the success of its

own aims may depend on its own efforts. And as happens where two

antagonistic parties are each convinced of the justice of its cause, and

in the absence of an umpire, the logical recourse is the wager of

battle.

Granting the premises, there should be no reasonable doubt as to this

eventual cleavage between those who own and those who do not; and of the

premises the only item that is not already an accomplished fact is the

installation of peace at large. The rest of what goes into the argument

is the well-known modern state of the industrial arts, and the equally

well-known price-system; which, in combination, give its character to

the modern state of business enterprise. It is only an unusually broad

instance of an institutional arrangement which has in the course of time

and changing conditions come to work at cross purposes with that

underlying ground of institutional arrangements that takes form in the

commonplace aphorism, Live and let live. With change setting in the

direction familiar to all men today, it is only a question of limited

time when the discrepancy will reach a critical pass, and the

installation of peace may be counted on to hasten this course of things.

That a decision will be sought by recourse to forcible measures, is also

scarcely open to question; since the established law and order provides

for a resort to coercion in the enforcement of these prescriptive

rights, and since both parties in interest, in this as in other cases,

are persuaded of the justice of their claims. A decision either way is

an intolerable iniquity in the eyes of the losing side. History teaches

that in such a quarrel the recourse has always been to force.

History teaches also, but with an inflection of doubt, that the outworn

institution in such a conjuncture faces disestablishment. At least, so

men like to believe. What the experience of history does not leave in

doubt is the grave damage, discomfort and shame incident to the

displacement of such an institutional discrepancy by such recourse to

force. What further appears to be clear in the premises, at least to the

point of a strong presumption, is that in the present case the decision,

or the choice, lies between two alternatives: either the price-system

and its attendant business enterprise will yield and pass out; or the

pacific nations will conserve their pecuniary scheme of law and order at

the cost of returning to a war footing and letting their owners preserve

the rights of ownership by force of arms.

The reflection obviously suggests itself that this prospect of

consequences to follow from the installation of peace at large might

well be taken into account beforehand by those who are aiming to work

out an enduring peace. It has appeared in the course of the argument

that the preservation of the present pecuniary law and order, with all

its incidents of ownership and investment, is incompatible with an

unwarlike state of peace and security. This current scheme of

investment, business, and sabotage, should have an appreciably better

chance of survival in the long run if the present conditions of warlike

preparation and national insecurity were maintained, or if the projected

peace were left in a somewhat problematical state, sufficiently

precarious to keep national animosities alert, and thereby to the

neglect of domestic interests, particularly of such interests as touch

the popular well-being. On the other hand, it has also appeared that the

cause of peace and its perpetuation might be materially advanced if

precautions were taken beforehand to put out of the way as much as may

be of those discrepancies of interest and sentiment between nations and

between classes which make for dissension and eventual hostilities.

So, if the projectors of this peace at large are in any degree inclined

to seek concessive terms on which the peace might hopefully be made

enduring, it should evidently be part of their endeavours from the

outset to put events in train for the present abatement and eventual

abrogation of the rights of ownership and of the price-system in which

these rights take effect. A hopeful beginning along this line would

manifestly be the neutralisation of all pecuniary rights of citizenship,

as has been indicated in an earlier passage. On the other hand, if peace

is not desired at the cost of relinquishing the scheme of competitive

gain and competitive spending, the promoters of peace should logically

observe due precaution and move only so far in the direction of a

peaceable settlement as would result in a sufficiently unstable

equilibrium of mutual jealousies; such as might expeditiously be upset

whenever discontent with pecuniary affairs should come to threaten this

established scheme of pecuniary prerogatives.

BOOKS BY THORSTEIN VEBLEN

THE THEORY OF THE LEISURE CLASS

THE THEORY OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISE

THE INSTINCT OF WORKMANSHIP

IMPERIAL GERMANY

AND THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

THE NATURE OF PEACE

AND THE TERMS OF ITS PERPETUATION

THE HIGHER LEARNING IN AMERICA

An Inquiry into the Nature of Peace and the Terms of Its Perpetuation · 第 8 / 8 章