Paternalistic Capitalism – Moses Harman, 4/10/1885

Republished from our predecessor publication Lucifer the Light Bearer

“Why, bless your soul, I would make the best old ‘high-cock-alorum’ you ever saw or heard of. For instance, I would
repeal the tariff, bankrupt, limitation, Comstock, occupation tax, and a hundred other bad laws; fix the homestead
exemption at $1,000; raise revenue by progressive taxation—one mill on the dollar for the first $1,000, and adding
a mill for each additional thousand; build cottages in every town for poor widows and others needing help to live
in, rent free; also hospitals, asylums, parks, etc.” —Shepherd, in LUCIFER, Feb. 27. “Suppose that by Aladdin’s
lamp, which more than one genius has possessed, you or I wielded the power of a fortune like Vanderbilt’s. Within a
generation, mechanical labor in the U.S. would be co-operative, and a fair initiative made with farm work. Agricultural
and mechanical schools would be established in every township, and polytechnic institutes in every State. No working
man or woman would be without a decent home.” —Edgeworth, in LUCIFER, April 3. Well, suppose, for the sake
of argument, that friend Shepherd could become the “high-cock-alorum” of which he speaks, and that he would
then do all the benevolent acts he now thinks he would do; and suppose that neighbor Edgeworth should wake
some fine morning and find himself in possession of a “fortune like Vanderbilt’s,” and that he would then inaugurate
a system of outside help, through the power of his enormous wealth, whereby every working man and woman
would be provided with a “decent home,” and all the other necessities and comforts of life. What then? Would it
necessarily follow that the mere improvement in the physical condition of these working men and women would
prove a permanent blessing to them? This plan of helping others by assuming a paternal relation toward them
has often been tried before. With what success, let the pages of history tell. Only a few years ago, while the star
of Louis Napoleon was still in the ascendant, and while he astonished all beholders with the splendor and apparent
success of his imperial government, an American aristocrat called my attention to the prosperity, security, and
happiness of the French people under the empire, as contrasted with their condition under a more liberal form of
government. “There,” said he triumphantly, “is not this a strong argument in favor of imperialism in government
as against democratic systems?”

“No,” I replied. “Before we can pass judgment on any system of government—before we can decide that its apparent
success is beneficial to the governed—we must know how, or by what means, this apparent success is achieved.
The government that fails to make its people strong, brave, self-reliant, and mentally as well as physically free, is
a failure—no matter how splendidly successful it may appear to the superficial observer.” The history of the war that
culminated in the surrender of Paris to the Germans in ’71 sufficiently vindicated the correctness of my reply. A
good illustration of the working of paternalism is shown in the case of many of the American Indian tribes. The U.S.
government has treated these children of the forest and plains as its wards. It pensions them, feeds them, and
clothes them—or pretends to do so—and under this treatment these tribes have rapidly degenerated. They have
lost what energy, courage, or manliness they once possessed, and have become confirmed beggars and thieves.
No, no! Good friends, Shepherd and Edgeworth, I cannot go with you in your paternalistic plans and schemes for
ameliorating the condition of the working class. While I am glad to see that Bro. Shepherd has come to LUCIFER’s
platform by expressing a wish to “repeal the tariff, bankrupt, limitation, Comstock, occupation tax, and a hundred
other bad laws,” I have no faith in the permanency of any benefit to be secured to the working class by building
“cottages for poor widows to live in, rent free,” or in erecting “hospitals, asylums, parks, etc.,” by the power of
private or personal munificence. The grand mistake made by all these benevolent paternalists is in attempting
to do for others what they should do for themselves, and what they in most cases would do for themselves if
they were not continually exploited or robbed of their equal right to nature’s opportunities or resources.

With all the best lands and all the mines, water-power, etc., in the hands of the capitalistic few, the workers are
mainly driven into the overstocked trades or mechanic arts, in which the toiler finds his muscles and his skill
matched against the power of steam and of improved machinery. In this struggle, the fight is no longer between
man and the rude forces of nature, but between man as a worker and man as a capitalist; and, saddest of
all, it soon becomes a life-and-death struggle between the workers themselves for the poor privilege of selling
their time and the use of their muscles and brains in exchange for the bare pittance necessary to sustain life.
LUCIFER’s remedy for the evils inherent in our industrial system—evils which must soon be redressed by
rational reform, else washed out in blood—is simply a return to Nature’s methods. Abolish all laws granting
privilege to capital; then let Evolution, along the line of co-operative effort and of natural ethics, do the rest.