The reader, therefore, if he will be good enough to reflect a little upon the matter, can not fail to appreciate [pg 095] the tremendous difficulties which beset the writing of this little book, for he must perceive, not only that the work belongs to the third kind of critical thought, but—what is much more—the errors it aims to destroy are fundamental, world-wide and old, while the true ideas it seeks to substitute for them are fundamental and new. This great difficulty, felt at every stage of this writing, is, for a reason to be presently explained, greatly enhanced and felt with especial keenness in the present chapter. I therefore beg the reader to give me here very special cooperation—the cooperation of open-mindedness, candor and critical attention. It is essential to keep in mind the nature of our enterprise as a whole, which is that of pointing the way to the science and art of Human Engineering and laying the foundations thereof; we have seen Human Engineering, when developed, is to be the science and art of so directing human energies and capacities as to make them contribute most effectively to the advancement of human welfare; we have seen that this science and art must have its basis in a true conception of human nature—a just conception of what Man really is and of his natural place in the complex of the world; we have seen that the ages-old and still current conceptions of man—zoological and mythological conceptions, according to which human beings are either animals or else hybrids of animals and gods—are [pg 096] mainly responsible for the dismal things in human history; we have seen that man, far from being an animal or a compound of natural and supernatural, is a perfectly natural being characterized by a certain capacity or power—the capacity or power to bind time; we have seen that humanity is, therefore, to be rightly conceived and scientifically defined as the time-binding class of life; we have seen that, therefore, the laws of time-binding energies and time-binding phenomena are the laws of human nature; we have seen that this conception of man—which must be the basic concept, the fundamental principle and the perpetual guide and regulator of Human Engineering—is bound to work a profound transformation in all our views on human affairs and, in particular, must radically alter the so-called social “sciences”—the life-regulating “sciences” of ethics, sociology, economics, politics and government—advancing them from their present estate of pseudo sciences to the level of genuine sciences and technologizing them for the effective service of mankind. I call them “life-regulating,” not because they play a more important part in human affairs than do the genuine sciences of mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy and biology, for they are not more important than these, but because they are, so to say, closer, more immediate and more obvious in their influence and effects. These life-regulating sciences [pg 097] are, of course, not independent; they depend ultimately upon the genuine sciences for much of their power and ought to go to them for light and guidance; but what I mean here by saying they are not independent is that they are dependent upon each other, interpenetrating and interlocking in innumerable ways. To show in detail how the so-called sciences will have to be transformed to make them accord with the right conception of man and qualify them for their proper business will eventually require a large volume or indeed volumes.
In this introductory work I cannot deal fully with one of those “sciences” nor in suitable outline with each of them separately. I must be content here to deal, very briefly, with one of them by way of illustration and suggestion. Which one shall it be?
Now among these life-regulating “sciences” there is one specially marked by the importance of its subject, by its central relation to the others and by its prominence in the public mind. I mean Economics—the “dismal science” of Political Economy. For that reason I have chosen to deal with economics. In the present chapter I shall discuss three of its principal terms—Wealth, Capital and Money—with a view to showing that the current meanings and interpretations of these familiar terms must be very greatly deepened, enlarged and elevated if they are to accord with facts and laws of human nature and if the so-called [pg 098] “science” which employs them is to become a genuine science properly qualified to be a branch of Human Engineering. It is to be shown that the meanings currently attached by political economists and others to the terms in question belong to what I have called the period of humanity's childhood; and it is to be shown that the new meanings which the terms must receive belong to the period of humanity's manhood. It will be seen that the new meanings differ so radically from the old ones as to make it desirable for the sake of clarity to give the new meanings new names. But this, however scientifically desirable, is impracticable because the old terms—wealth, capital, money—are so deeply imbedded in the speech of the world. And here comes into view the very special difficulty alluded to above and which led me to request the reader's special cooperation in this chapter. The difficulty is not merely that of destroying old ideas that are false; it is not merely that of replacing them with true ideas that are new; it is that of causing people habitually to associate meanings that are new and true with terms associated so long, so universally, so uniformly with meanings that are false.
The secret of philosophy, said Leibnitz, is to treat familiar things as unfamiliar. By the secret of “philosophy” Leibnitz meant the secret of what we call science. Let us apply this wholesome maxim in [pg 099] our present study; let us, in so far as we can, regard the familiar terms—wealth, capital and money—as unfamiliar; let us deal with them afresh; let us examine openmindedly the facts—the phenomena—to which the terms relate and ascertain scientifically the significance the terms must have in a genuine science of human economy. Examine “the facts” I say—examine “the phenomena”—for bending facts to theories is a vital danger, while bending theories to facts is essential to science and the peaceful progress of society.
Human beings have always had some sense of values—some perception or cognition of values. In order to express or measure values, it was necessary to introduce units of measure, or units of exchange. People began to measure values by means of agricultural and other products, such as cattle, for example. The Latin word for cattle was pecus, and the word pecunia, which came to signify money, accounts for the meaning of our familiar word pecuniary. The earliest units for measuring became unsuited to the increasing needs of growing trade, “business,” or traffic. Finally a unit called money was adopted in which the base was the value of some weight of gold. Thus we see that money came to mean simply the accepted unit for measuring, representing and expressing values of and in wealth.
But what is wealth? I have said that the old [pg 100] conceptions of wealth, capital and money—the conceptions that are still current throughout the world—belong to the period of humanity's childhood—they are childish conceptions. I have said that they must be replaced by scientific conceptions—by conceptions fit for humanity's manhood. The change that must be made in our conceptions of the great terms is tremendous. It is necessary to analyse the current conceptions of wealth, capital, and money—the childish conceptions of them—in order to reveal their falseness, stupidity and folly. To do this we must enter the field of Political Economy—a field beset with peculiar difficulties and dangers. All the Furies of private interests are involved. One gains the impression that there is little or no real desire to gain a true conception—a scientific conception—of wealth. Everybody seems to prefer an emotional definition—a definition that suits his personal love of wealth or his hatred of it. Many definitions of wealth, capital and money are to be found in modern books of political economy—definitions and books belonging to humanity's childhood. For the purpose of this writing they all of them look alike—they sufficiently agree—they are all of them childish. Mill, for example, tells us that wealth consists of “useful or agreeable things which possess exchangeable value.” Of capital one of the simplest definitions is this:
“Capital is that part of wealth which is devoted to obtaining further wealth.” (Alfred Marshall, Economics of Industry.)
Walker (in his Money, Trade and Industry) defines money as follows:
“Money is that which passes freely from hand to hand throughout the community in final discharge of debts and full payment for commodities, being accepted equally without reference to the character or credit of the person who offers it, and without the intention of the person who receives it to consume it, or to enjoy it, or apply it to any other use than, in turn, to tender it to others in discharge of debts or full payment for commodities.”
Political economy has many different schools of thought and methods of classification. Its reasonings are mainly speculative, metaphysical, and legalistic; its ethics is zoological ethics, based on the zoological conception of man as an animal. The elements of natural logic and natural ethics are absent. The sophisticated ideas about the subject of political economy, bluntly do not correspond to facts. Our primitive forefather in the jungle would have died from hunger, cold, heat, blood poisoning or the attacks of wild animals, if he had not used his brain and muscles to take some stone or a piece of wood to knock down fruit from trees, to kill an animal, so as to use his hide for clothes and his meat for food, or to break wood and trees for a shelter and to make some weapons for defense and hunting.