Although bribery can influence votes and a few constituencies can still be bought, the necessity of being a man of means in order to be admitted into active political life is happily a thing of the past. On the other hand, the influence of the capitalist press, run as it is now, chiefly as a financial speculation, has in later days grown to be a grave national peril. The power here exercised is of a very distinct and far-reaching description. The ambitions of capitalism and the demands of shareholders are interpreted as the will of the people, and the worst instincts of aggressive arrogance are traded upon to produce at the proper moment the scare or outburst of jingoism; at the same time, “popular” protests can be artificially engineered to stand against any movement which is likely to interfere with the ambitions of the wealthy.
Money, therefore, does mean power, but power of a pernicious description, “that of brute force, the power of the bludgeon and the bayonet and of the bribed press, tongue, and pen.”[14]
Having discussed worldliness, vanity, and self-indulgence as well as commercial enterprise and speculation, we must get to close quarters with an aspect of the problem which at first sight might seem to be an exception to our general condemnation of riches. What is the real effect of money spent by millionaires on philanthropic, scientific, or social experiments, and even educational endowments? Are we justified in hailing them as wholly and unquestionably beneficent?
That they should spend their money this way instead of on themselves must be acknowledged at once as preferable and as a step in a better direction. They gain immense applause from the world by their deeds, although, of course, no sacrifice whatever is involved. It is greatly to their credit that their intelligence should prompt them to attempt to benefit their fellows by a national and scientific exploration of new ground which may eventually lead to some permanent benefit to the human race. But while granting unreservedly the purity of their motives, we shall by a more exact examination of the nature, scope, and consequences of their action come to the following conclusions which amount to objections:
(1) The choice of the particular experiment and the decision as to whether it shall be embarked on at all rests with one individual will. The source of action therefore being an uncertain quantity which cannot be depended upon, this method of initiating works for the public benefit is incapable of being organised, controlled, or even relied upon. Indeed, millionaires are apt to be like spoilt children unless they can have the satisfaction of complete control over their exploits.
(2) The experiment selected may not be a wise one or in conformity with the ideals of real betterment, even though for a time it may receive the formal sanction of popular approval.
(3) Even if the experiment is admittedly useful and beneficial, it has a strong tendency to encourage us, who constitute the community as a whole, to think that as there are rich men who are sufficiently enterprising and public-spirited to undertake these schemes and works of general utility, it is unnecessary to organise corporate effort, to establish them ourselves. Moreover, there is limit of productivity in private enterprise.
(4) There are social schemes carefully conceived and elaborately worked out which fail because the very security of certain financial help and support has the effect of weakening initiative, choking enterprise, and preventing the growth of the just pride and self-reliance which individuals or bodies of individuals can only develop in an independent struggle with the chances and changes of their natural environment. Those who are supposed to benefit by the scheme are in fact, oppressed by the shadow of the heavy arm of the financial subsidy which dominates the whole situation. This may be unreasonable, but it is quite natural, and it shows that money poured out by one hand clogs the machinery of commercial and industrial life, falls, so to speak, into clots and cannot spread itself effectively as a lubricant into the many narrow and unseen corners of the domestic, municipal, or rural life and activities of the people.
(5) Lastly, or it should have been said, primarily, the paramount objection is that any good that may come from the particular scheme or experiment is completely outweighed by the wrong that has been perpetrated and the injury that has been inflicted, in countless ways and in numberless directions, by the withdrawal from healthy circulation and the accumulation of the very riches a part of which is now being returned to the community in this doubtful form.
It would be ungenerous to deny that great care and forethought have been exercised by the millionaires who have determined to devote a large part of their wealth to some great religious, social, scientific, or artistic cause. Distinct benefits have accrued from their action. But emphatically this does not mean that surplus wealth in individual hands can be used profitably. It means that human ingenuity, intelligence, and generous feeling can to some small extent mitigate in one direction the constant and pressing evils which the accumulation of riches has caused and is causing in a vastly more extensive way.
Another example about which some doubt might be expressed is that of a man struggling with his family on an income well below the limit, unable to develop his capacities and lead a decently useful life because of the constant pinch of want. Will not a gift of money which secures him a competence without affluence, frees his energies for higher work, and liberates him from the sordid and painful trials of poverty, will not such a gift be an unqualified advantage to him, and will not, therefore, the giver of that money be an exception to the axiom that superfluous wealth cannot be well spent?
The gift and its acceptance are not the only determining factors in the problem. If such a case is quite fairly stated, it shows that the donor was not giving part of his superfluous wealth, taking the definition of superfluous which has already been given. He is giving something which, as it turns out, he personally has the capacity to give in a profitable and fruitful manner, and which perhaps involves a certain amount of sacrifice on his part. This money therefore constitutes part of his competence and the gift is justifiable. But this can only be admitted to a very restricted extent. He must use the utmost discretion not to give too much, otherwise he will overstep the mark of prudence. He may be encouraged to make this gift too frequently and less discriminatingly. In short, the number of such cases, where the recipient is unmistakably benefited by an isolated gift of money, are very exceptional. If we are presupposing that our donor has money to play with and that his gift is made out of his superfluity, in this case, as in that of the millionaire’s experiment, his balance is on the wrong side, and more harm is being done by the retention of his surplus than good is done by his small, spasmodic endeavours at charitable help and subsidy, even though now and then they may be perfectly well directed.
Capital entrusted to companies, corporations, municipalities, or in the possession of the State, need not, from the bare fact of its being held conjointly by a number of people, be expended in a wise way or on remunerative works. But there is a very much better chance of its being well spent in the long run, where there is practically unlimited capacity in the joint efforts and united talents of a number of people, where there is disinterested control, and where that control is itself far from supreme, being subject to the direct supervision of electors or of the general community. Remonstrance, appeal, or protest in this case is always possible and effectual, but when an individual is the only dispenser of the funds, he is the sole arbiter and judge, has complete and despotic power, and is not answerable to any superior authority.
Further it cannot be seriously controverted that money, circulating in small sums in the hands of the mass of the people and devoted for the most part to the purchase of the necessaries of life, is infinitely more conducive to productive expenditure than money hoarded in large quantities to be administered by a small class for their own advantage.