THE SILENT REVOLUTION

Waikato Times, Volume 117, Issue 19564, 1 May 1935, Page 6

THE SILENT REVOLUTION

The British House of Lords last month staged a debate on Capitalism and Socialism. It occupied two days, and the majority of the speakers showed that they were fully conversant with their theme.

The debate as a whole, said the London .Times, must have deepened the impression that Western society is in a period of transition, a transition no less profound than that by which the Feudal System passed into the Individualist and Capitalist System. To say that the transition is one from capitalism to socialism, and still more so to link it up with political parties in the State, is to darken counsel. The great transition through which society is passing is one which may be in power, and its final form will doubtless be very different from what even the most discerning prophet anticipates.

How great is the “silent revolution” already effected may be seen by reflecting that the capitalist in the old sense, has virtually disappeared. The men who by their personal wealth were able to give direct employment to tens or hundreds or thousands of workmen no longer dominate the industrial scene. For decades there has been an increasing concentration of capital and output, and the movement is gathering momentum. In consequence the capitalist, in, the old sense, has lost his importance, and the men who matter in the economy of to-day are not those who own, but those who control, capital.

Competition has disappeared over a large portion of the industrial field. Moreover the motive of profit, the mainspring of the capitalist sytem, has a decreasing importance. It has long been recognised that there are certain essential services, both local and national, which the motive of profit will never supply, or supply efficiently.

Lord Allen, who moved the resolution upon which the debate hinged, mentioned a calculation made a few years ago that practically two-thirds of the large-scale economic organisation of Britain had already passed out of the sphere of unregulated private profitmaking control. Even more significant was the statement quoted from a leader of one great industrial combine —and it seems to be borne out in fact —that the combine’s activities were directed to service rather than profit.

That will undoubtedly be the keynote of the age into which we are passing. This suggests that the age now opening before us may in some ways be a synthesis of the two preceding ages. In the medieval world economic considerations were, in theory at least, subordinate to ethics. The age which followed saw a complete divorce between economics and ethics, and its motto was “ Business is business.” The right of money to bear interest was recognised and approved. As a result the productive energies of the world were wonderfully stimulated.

But the divorce between economics and ethics was not one which could be tolerated indefinitely, and for many generations now the harsh effects of the system of pure kissez-faire have been mitigated by State action. The task before us now is to ensure once more the supremacy of ethics over economics while preserving all the immense advantages won for us by the capitalist system. It is a task calling for the highest statesmanship, and one in which Britain may be expected once more to lead the world, as she did in the transition from Feudalism and again in the Industrial Revolution.