The value of civilization, of an orderly social system, is great to, and is keenly felt by, the rich. But that value is just as great to, just as keenly felt by, the masses. Are they not wholly dependent upon it for well-being, just as are the rich—no more, no less?
And the work of preparing the oncoming generation for the preservation and improvement of the social structure is done in each generation not by the rich, not by generosity and benevolence, but by the masses themselves in a myriad of homes, in a myriad of schoolhouses, in the hourly personal and helpful intercourse of a myriad intelligent, aspiring men, women and children. It is not concentrated wealth that places the resources of the world at the disposal of the masses. It is the intelligence of the masses, demanding those resources, that enables concentrated wealth to gain its too often hideously unjust demands. Concentrated wealth may to a limited extent promote progress; but that is overbalanced by the fact that concentrated wealth still more heavily penalizes progress.
If civilization, freedom, love of order, were dependent for their existence or spread in any large degree upon the rich philanthropist and his fellow-millionaires, cataclysm would be a mild word for what would be about to befall us.
As for the “spirit of commercialism and greed,” what reason is there to suppose it stronger now than in the past? Because the wealth-producing capacity of the masses has enormously increased, because the opportunities for earning comfort have infinitely multiplied, because millions are striving for prosperity now where the few once monopolized it all—are these reasons for accusing us to-day of being greedy and growing greedier?
Was there ever a time or a place in history where mere money was so powerless and brains so mighty as the present day in the American Republic? Was there ever a time or place where the individual man was at once so powerful to protect his own rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and so powerless to snatch away those rights from others?
The conscientious rich man does well to try to whip his fellow-millionaires into line with the procession. But he need not torment his declining years with horrid visions of coming anarchy if these rich men do not stop groveling and grasping and begin to entertain worthy ambitions. Let the rich do their part; but let every man, rich or poor, high or humble, remember that his first duty is to see that he is doing his own part.
One loses patience with the constant precedence given the idea that riches alone mean success. Why is it that the only men who are eagerly interviewed and importuned to write articles on “the secret of success” are multi-millionaires?
Are there no successful men but multi-millionaires? There are not more than five thousand of them in the country. Carlyle once described England as “inhabited by thirty millions, mostly fools.” And our own country, if none has succeeded in it but the multi-millionaires, may be described as inhabited by “eighty millions, mostly failures.”
Success is a glittering word, capable of many meanings. A man is not necessarily a failure because he has not made money—a million dollars or a hundred. Some very successful men have never tried to make money. They preferred to make something, and if they achieved their desires they succeeded—from their own viewpoint, at least.
Agassiz would not accept five thousand dollars a night to lecture. “I have no time to make money,” he said. Scientific inquiry and discovery were the objects of his life, and he succeeded in his pursuit of them. Wellington, after conquering Mysore, was proffered a gift of five hundred thousand dollars by the corrupt East Indian Company. He refused to touch it. Piling up “big money” was not his idea of success, either.