THE WORLD CRISIS

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume XXXVII, Issue 9304, 24 November 1938, Page 3

THE WORLD CRISIS

ADDRESS BY REV. CANON KAYLL i: ;• INTERESTING REVIEW RADICAL. CHANGES OPERATING An interesting address was delivered in St. John’s Church on Sunday evening by the vicar, Reverend Canon Kayll, dealing with the reasons why the present social and industrial system had failed. The vicar introduced his subject by declaring that in the world crisis of to-day was to be seen the movement of irresistible powers making for a radical change in the economic and social situation. If this movement was to be permeated with the Christian spirit, the Church must be prepared to make radical efforts to regain its primitive faith. A cooperative effort, with a high ideal and a sincere motive was bound to be crowned with, success. The Wars of the Roses had broken up a baronial system and had shaken the feudal system to its foundations. The Black Plague of 1665 practically disposed of the feudal system, and at the beginning of the eighteenth century its dissolution was well advanced. New countries had been discoverec. and the enormous wealth of these brought about a change from agricultural industry to commercial. Philosophy and religion were also creating changes. The development of art in the Renaissance period discovered the value of the individual in culture and the movement towards the Reformation stressed the value ofthe individual in religion. These movements were undermining the older which regarded man in the mass and were placing a value upon him as a unit. But the rapid development of commercialism imposed new restrictions upon man s liberty. If it acknowledged him individual rights, which were formally disallowed, to a larger extent, it made him more the servant of a system than he had previously been the servant of man, and its exactions were more rigid than the ones from which he had been freed. Against these exactions the eighteenth century rose in revolt. STATE RIVALRY These restrictions were both political and economic, the latter becoming the more vexatious. The reason is plain. Following upon the decay of the feudal sytsem, all power became centralised in the State and the de- j velopment of colonial trade and expansion made economic interest the dominant element in State politics.. This led to rivalry between States, and rivalry led to war. To carry on wars, the States needed money. Those States that had not gold and silver mines, strove to acquire wealth by exporting goods to a greater value than that of the goods that it imported and thus secure a favourable balance of trade. To secure this favourable balance the State began to interfere with trade and commercial activities. It imposed duties on some imported goods and forbade the importation of others. It also imposed export duties and in other ways increased taxation to the degree that it became a heavy burden, falling chiefly on the shoulders of the agriculturist. This system was called "mercantilism” and men whose religion had liberated them from the older tyrannies, found themselves under the heel of far worse ones. But the end was coming. Behind the new movement lay the ideasi of Rousseau, who had contrasted the natural order of man, under which he lived in obedience to the laws of God, with the positive order under which he was subject to the imperfect laws of existing governments. MAN’S DESTINY On these doctrines the French Physiocrats led the attack and declared that as the equilibrium of nature is established by physical laws, so man’s destiny is regulated by natural laws, which grant him inalienable rights which he should be free to exercise so long as he does not interfere with the freedom of others He should be free to profit by his own labour and the general progress required that freedom of trade and exchange should be acknowledged. In the exercise of this freedom, governments should leave him alone and restrict their powers to guaranteeing and safeguarding these rights. Th< doctrine of laissez faire was theii motto.

Adam Smith was a still more powerful champion of the philosophy of individual freedom. Smith, however, leaves a good deal of scope for Government intervention, especially in the case where individual effort was exploiting a situation to its own undue advantage. He certainly showed a great deal of trust in human nature in his i belief that by granting liberty to the individual, he would be prepared to work for the common good and in general, the benefits would accrue to all. SELF REALISATION His successors, the philosophic radicals of the Manchester school, considered that there was a complete harmony between individual and public interests and that in the sell'-in-terested strivings of the individual lay the royal road to general happiness.. John Stuart Mill also extolled the supreme worth of the individual and made self realisation the supreme aim of existence. The doctrine of laissez faire has been definitely discredited by events, for by men expending their efforts in self aggrandisement, the present state of inequalities has been brought about. But while this is so, there are certain vital truths in the doctrine which show that it can be applied wisely as well as unwisely. Individuals may apply the doctrine in a

manner revealing the worth of the other man just as others apply with reference to themselves. Wm. Carey, the great pioneer of modern missions convinced of the common and equal rights of all men, set out to share with backwood and primitive races his riches of the knowledge of God, And so with others who have worked among the poor, the outcast and the criminal classes. We can see that a just realisation of the worth of the individual leads to the amendment of society in the abolition of privilege among some and the lack of privilege and justice among others. So that the discovery in the eighteenth century of the worth of the individual is a distinct asset in social progress. Then why did it fail? Because the individualism of the 18th century dropped the idea of equality. It took the view that the individual was moved solely by self-interest and saw in competition and acquisitiveness his natural bent, living to make gain for himself no matter what the consequence might be for others. And so the trend of the doctrine of liberty has been the production of the economic man, who glorified not the individual but the self-seeking individual and so played havoc with the conception of equality. We find him invading the realm of religion and instead of seeking there a field of service for his fellow man, he sought but his own personal salvation. —of course he doesn’t find it.

It is well to make persons the end of all social and political effort provided you include all persons, but to hand the world over to those who would use their liberty to prey upon others destroys fraternity and makes for warfare in which the victor takes the spoils. For although all may have equal liberty, all have not the same power to succeed in a world of ruthless competition and as a result we have a comparative few who are enormously rich and masses struggling in poverty. At the same time, this result cannot be charged against the philosophy of the 18th century. The doctrine of liberty, equality and fraternity was a humane one and capable of practical application. What really happened was that it was never applied—in any general sense. The doctrine of liberty was pushed into the front in order to disquise the avarice of money-getters, whose activities destroyed the liberties of ! others and denied them equality and fraternity. While this condition bah created a just antagonism, let us remember that it will not be remedied by the classes merely changing places with one another. And, as the Americans say, when emptying the bath, we don’t want to throw out the baby with the soapy water, so let us preserve whatsoever may be of value in the philosophy of the 18tli century while wo condemn the predatory practices that crept in and established themselves under its disguise. (To be continued.^