Recovering from War and Economic Depressions
Joseph Dana Miller
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom,
September-October, 1935]
AMONG the explanations of the cause of the depression one that recurs
most frequently is the World War. It is heard in speeches in Congress,
in editorials, and often in the more thoughtful dissertations of
prominent writers. Thus Mr. J. G. Lockhart in a recent work entitled
The Peace Makers, says:
"The world did not fully recover from the
Napoleonic Wars until a full generation had passed and the middle of
the nineteenth century had been reached,"
and then he follows with the lesson from analogy that
"we may not expect full recovery until about the
year 1954."
Just how wars work to produce depressions we are not informed, nor is
any effort made to clear up the matter, beyond the remark casually let
drop by Mr. Lockhart that "war is an expensive process." An
analogy that seems to have been completely forgotten is the prosperity
that followed our own Civil War, which would seem to require some
counter explanation. The theory falls to the ground the moment it is
examined.
For one thing, such explanation is too easy. We are, as a matter of
fact, living in a constant depression -- low wages, industrial
insecurity and mass poverty. These are accentuated by periods of more
acute distress which go under the name of "depressions." The
times that we are out of these depressions are infrequent enough and
to call them periods of prosperity is an abuse of language. With the
masses of men there are always depressions. There are no times of
prosperity; there are only times of less acute distress, less
wide-spread poverty.
ARE such theories conscious attempts to evade inevitable conclusions
following a closer analysis? We think not. They are born of a
superficial analysis of the social problem, and an ignorance of
economic factors. That escape out of the depression must wait until
1954, that not until then may we overcome the disastrous effect of a
war that ended in 1918, will seem fantastic on reflection. For however
great was the destruction of wealth resulting from the World War, a
period of ten years would have more than sufficed for the replacement
of that loss.
What these theories naively ignore, are of course the economic
factors. The very instant the flags are furled and peace declared,
these economic factors, rudely interrupted by the chaos of conflict,
begin their work. Mr. Lockhart writes as follows:
"History, if we omit the rare and incalculable
interference of the abnormal, is the product not of a few
spectacular actions, but of innumerable events, unnoticed but
irresistable in cumulations."
The problem is incorrectly stated. History is not governed by the "interference
of the abnormal," nor yet by "innumerable events," but
by law, among which is the working of economic factors. These "innumerable
events" are not the cause of social dislocations, but are the
effect of the ignoring of natural laws. Wars themselves are the
effects. What we amusingly call peace are only wars disguised. Nations
that arm themselves with hostile tariffs are not only preparing for
war actually they are at war. And their conflicts of diplomacy are but
one remove from armed conflict.
After war, as after the World War, to which is erroneously attributed
the depression, economic trends are once again in full swing. The same
old round is to be traversed again. The same old stumbling blocks to
progress remain. The same slow impoverishment of the workers that
results from the taking of private wealth for public purposes and the
gradual encroachment of speculative rent, paralyzing labor and
capital, go on as before. These forces are at all times sufficient to
account for the stagnation of industry without recourse to imaginary
theories to account for periods of depression which differ from the
normal only in intensity. The phenomena we observe, low wages,
poverty, unemployment are the resultants of a denial of the natural
order and not of the merely temporary dislocations caused by wars from
which we soon recover, going from the horrors of war into the horrors
of peace, which are only a little less devastating.
It is safer as a mode of reasoning leading to sound conclusions, to
consider economic theories in accordance with the economic facts, or
in other words using the factors that belong to that special domain.
If what we know as economic laws work the same under the same
conditions; if we deny men's right to the use of the earth; if,
recognizing trade as a part of production, we nevertheless strangle
trade by tariffs and taxes, we have a sufficient explanation of
poverty and human misery without the resort to any other theory to
account for what we see. Yet the proneness to consider theories of
economic facts while ignoring economic factors is responsible for much
unreason. We shall never get far until we look upon political economy
as a science and consider it in the terms that belong to it.
These terms and relations are simple enough. Nothing indeed can be
simpler. If land is a place to get things out of that we know by the
name of wealth, and the earth is the only reservoir of human needs, by
what natural law do we pay others for the permission of access to it?
What is property? What is wealth? What are wages? Correct answers to
these questions comprise all that need be known as political economy.
All that is needed now is not to write books about it unless it is for
the purpose of clearing away cobwebs. Henry George has written it in a
great book which only an insane man would hope to improve upon, and in
writing this book he has probably condemned a million other books,
written or to be written, to a merited oblivion.
We can never cease to be amazed at the difficulty men and women find
in the comprehension of natural laws. It would seem they are about the
last things they recognize, certainly the last things they are able to
reason about. Yet the failure to apprehend them lies at the basis of
nearly all our troubles. That the relations of men are subject to
mechanical devices is the fundamental error of the Socialists. It is
also at the basis of the Roosevelt fallacies, now in partial eclipse.
The laws of cooperation and competition work such wonders when left to
themselves that it would seem they could not be wholly overlooked. The
need of reconciling human relations to these laws would seem to be
obvious enough. But so little are men willing to trust these laws that
laissez faire has come to be regarded as a horned beast. The
industrial body must be treated to potions and plasters and the
natural powers of recovery are never called into play. Even medicine
has made more advances than that.
It is quite impossible to catalogue the various explanations and
remedies offered for the depression. Some of the "remedies"
are incredibly silly because the diagnosis is almost invariably at
fault. We have examined the war theory, but what shall be said of
another rather numerous group who look to wars as the source of
prosperity, thus reversing the theory that wars are responsible for
depressions. The technocrats have had their day and have faded out of
the picture. Overpopulation and overproduction have done some service.
There still lingers the notion, no less vague and indistinct than a
host of others, that the machine age is responsible for the times
through which we are passing, and that really nothing can be done
about it unless we accept government ownership of the means of
production.
Just when the "machine age" began there seems to be some
uncertainty. But considered rationally it must have had a beginning.
The substitution of a spade for a stick in digging potatoes seems like
the commencement of the so-called "machine age," but we
cannot be qaite certain of that. The substitution of the sewing
machine for the needle might set a definite beginning for the machine
age, but again we cannot be too sure. For the needle is a kind of
machine. Anything that fortifies the hand, or substitutes mechanical
appliance for physical labor, or adds to it, is a machine, and the
process of such substitution is as old as the cave man, or older. When
men talk of a machine age they are talking of civilization and
processes coequal with the appearance of man on the planet. If the
relation of man to land is understood there is no problem here. Every
invention, every advance in the processes of production under normal
relations, with free access to land, increases the opportunities for
the production of wealth.
IT is the closing of natural resources, the blackmail laid upon
industry by those who contribute nothing to industry, the ever
increasing tribute demanded of labor and capital, that bedevils the
process and leads the intellect astray. Once the factors in this very
simple problem are understood it becomes no longer complicated. It is
no longer a money question. It is no longer something that calls for
planning; the plan is already made. It is no longer a question of too
many people in the world; nature saw to that when the world was
created. It is no longer a question of overproduction -- too many good
things for too many people in the world, a mathematical contradiction
which we hear from the same lips. All these strange absurdities
prevail and would require the pen of a Dean Swift to fitly
characterize.
We hear it said that "our industrial system has broken down."
In one sense it has in another and more important sense it has not. It
is not necessary to rebuild the industrial system. Let us leave that
to our ingenious friends, the Socialists, and their brothers, the
social planners at Washington. If they would but recognize that what
appears to be the breakdown of the system is not due to any inherent
defects in the system itself, but to a dislocation of the factors.
These factors have been ignored their proper functioning in the
industrial system misapplied. There is nothing the matter with the
system itself if these functions are recognized for what they are, and
the office they fill and the work they do, properly apportioned. The
industrial system has apparently broken down because the factors have
not been recognized for what they are by those whose duty it is to
teach, the statesmen and politicians, and the heads of our
institutions of learning from which only occasionally a lucid voice is
forthcoming.
The notion that we need a central regulating power over industry
explains the opposition to the Constitution and its interpretation by
the Supreme Court in the recent N.R.A. decision. Paul Blanchard in a
recent number of The Forum complains that the Constitution hampers
progress because "it prevents a central control of our economic
life and a unified system of labor laws." For our part we would
be quite as distrustful of unified control of our economic life by
politicians temporarily in power as in the hands of the nine able
gentlemen who constitute the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, the
Constitution is more flexible than "unified control" in the
hands of a strong administration. It has been amended twenty-one times
in 150 years. It is far from being a static instrument since it
provides for its own modification by direct amendment. And we were
told years ago by Peter Finley Dunne, somewhat cynically, that
decisions of the Supreme Court "follow the election returns."
So we may rest in that assurance if all else fails us.
But the very centralized powers for which Mr. Blanchard contends are
a danger more imminent and perilous than any possible usurpation of
power by the Supreme Court. We would not lightly ignore certain
considerations, but some thoughtful men are saying that a dictatorship
has been averted by the Supreme Court decision. We will not go so far
as to assert this, but certain recent developments in the process of
vesting in the Executive unusual powers have held a menace which it
were wise not to underestimate.
No doubt the power of forty-eight states to legislate in their own
way on all matters which are not intertate opposes an obstacle to "unified
control of labor," and we for one are glad of it. We would rather
bear the possible inconveniences, if there are any, in favor of the
forty-eight experiment stations in the legislatures of forty-eight
states. It seems to us that democracy has a better fighting chance. We
are glad that the Supreme Court stands as a guardian over the rights
of the states. We have forty-eight times more faith in the emulative
example of half a hundred legislatures competing for adventure in
social progress than a centralized government at Washington, however
sloppily benevolent.
We have made some progress in economic thought. No complaint that
unemployment arises from laziness or improvidence is likely to be
heard again. Nor is it probable that any great paper like the Chicago
Tribune will again advance the giving of arsenic to the
unemployed, the tramp or the striker. Strikes have become almost
popular and unemployment too familiar a phenomenon. No future
president of a great railroad system will advocate that strikers
crying for food should be given "rifle diet and see how they like
that kind of food." No, newspapers and railroad officials have
grown if not more humane at least more cautious. So much has been
gained for the cause of sanity and a calmer outlook upon the social
problem.
How little we can depend on the teachings of so-called radical
journals like The Nation is shown by their attitude toward the
Supreme Court decision. The Nation says:
"The President cannot complain about his luck. The
Supreme Court has given him a new chance to assert his leadership
after he himself has forfeited many golden opportunities. We think
that he now has the best issue of his career."
If The Nation really understood the economic issues involved
it would hail the Supreme Court decision on the N.R.A. as a great step
in the preservation of our liberties. We have no grave objection to
amending the Constitution in a way that will restrict its power over
national legislation. But that merely looks to a possible improvement
of the instrument itself, and the Constitution provides the method of
procedure. It is unfortunate that the issue should be presented at
this time when the decision is in accordance with the best traditions
of a liberty-loving people.
IF there is need for an amendment to the Constitution it is a pity
that the chief protagonists of such change should be those who have
shown small comprehension of American traditions. We should far rather
trust the future of this republic with the men composing the Supreme
Court than with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and those comprising the
milk and water socialistic school of The Nation and The New Republic.
There is, we believe, little to choose between Mr. Roosevelt and Mr.
Villard. Neither school to which these men belong has the faintest
conception of natural law in wealth distribution, and both seem to
think that laissez faire and the operation of free competition
disastrous in their results. Neither school has the faintest
conception of human liberty. The Nation has done some good
service on occasions for the defense of human rights, but what man's
fundamental rights are is left to conjecture.
Let The Nation speak for itself. In one article entitled "A
Constitutional Plutocracy," it says:
"Our mutual life is dominated by agriculture and
commerce. Unless they can be controlled by the nation the government
of the country virtually passes to them."
We say now that this is un-American doctrine. It is bad economics; it
is Socialism half disguised. They are words if they mean anything that
lead straight to Karl Marx. No wonder the Supreme Court decision
irritates men who believe as they do in federal control of all means
of earning a livelihood. The control of economic factors by
forty-eight states is not enough. Statute law and the civil law we are
told are not sufficient to guard against abuses. So the federal power
must be asked to step in and work its wonders.
The Nation writer continues:
"How can the situation be met? Met it must be, for
without action we are confirmed as the serfs of big business."
This is the sheerest kind of nonsense. In this instance the Supreme
Court stands for sound economics and American liberty. The bigness of
big business is a negligible factor. The abolition of monopoly is all
that is demanded, but The Nation is not willing to take this
step. It prefers to fight the Supreme Court decision when such
decision is a victory for the principles of American liberty which we
have cherished for 150 years and to which The Nation now and
then has contributed some lip service.
Remember now that in all of this Mr. Oswald Garrison Villard proposes
no reform in the process by which we are (to quote) "handed over
to the mercies of a business and fundamental plutocracy." Did
indeed the Supreme Court decision do this to us? If so it is really
imperative that something be done about it. Why these strictures
against the Constitution and the Supreme Court and not against the
powers to which we are now "handed over, bound hand and foot?"
Will this kind of dreary nonsense find disciples? Is the answer that
if Henry Ford's plant is now too big it should be made smaller, and by
federal enactment? That big farms be split up into smaller farms? If
the objection is to big business may we not ask, "How big?"
Nothing here about monopoly that operates against both big and little
businesses. Nothing against federal meddling and taxes that choke
little businesses as well as big. Nothing to show that the earth is
closed against industry, that men are denied a place to work, that
capital and labor, big and little businesses, are crushed by the
exactions of land monopoly.
IT seems to be the opinion of The Nation that everybody not
opposed to the Supreme Court decision is committed to the status quo.
If to reject the status quo means the acceptance of "production
for use rather than profit," which is a fundamental tenet in The
Nation's Socialism we are indeed committed to the rejection of all
such nonsense. For is not all production for use, and is not profit
the incentive and the real wages of production?
|