24
Lester Ward (1844-1913)
Plutocracy and Paternalism (1895)
To judge from the tone of the popular press, the country would seem to be between the devil of state interference and the deep sea of gold. The two epithets “plutocracy” and “paternalism,” so freely applied, are intended to characterize the worst tendencies of the times in these two opposite directions, and are calculated to engender the bitterest feelings in the public mind. If such a thing were possible, it would certainly be useful, standing aloof from the contest, to make a cool, unbiased analysis of the true meaning of these terms in their relation to the existing state of affairs….
Justly or unjustly, society has made wealth a measure of work. It is easy on general principles to prove that it is not such a measure. Everyone is personally cognizant to cases to the contrary. All will admit that, taken in the abstract, the principle is unsound, and yet all act upon it. Not rationally, not perhaps consciously, but still they do it. There is a sort of feeling that if one is destitute there must be a reason for it. It is inevitably ascribed to some personal deficit. In a word, absence of means is, in one form or another, made to stand for absence of merit. Its cause is looked for in character. This is most clearly seen in the marked contrast between the indisposition to help the unsuccessful, and the willingness to help the successful. Aside from the prospect of a quid pro quo, no one wants to waste time, energy, or money on what is worthless—and possession is the primary test of worth….
Thus it comes about that wealth, in the existing state of society, is a tremendous power. It gives not only ease, plenty, luxury, but, what is infinitely more, the respect of all and the envy of the less favored. It gives, in a word, superiority; and the strongest craving of a man’s nature is, in one way or another, to be set over his fellows. When all this is considered, the futility of the proposal if certain reformers to eradicate the passion for proprietary acquisition becomes apparent. It may be assumed that this passion will continue for an indefinite period to be the ruling element of the industrial state. That is has done and is still doing incalculable service to society few will deny. That is may continue to be useful to the end of our present industrial era will probably be admitted by all but a small class….
So much for plutocracy. Let us now turn to the other pole of public opinion and inquire into the meaning of “paternalism.” Literally, of course, paternalism in government would be restricted to cases in which the governing power is vested in a single person, who may be regarded as well-disposed and seeking to rule his subjects for their own good, as a father governs his children. But a ruling family, or even a large ruling class, may be supposed to govern from similar motives. In either case the governed are not supposed to have any voice in the matter, but are cared for like children b